Supporting Students: Tutorial Support

Supporting Students: Tutorial Support

1


Edited by A. Cook, K.A. Macintosh and B.S. Rushton

The STAR (Student Transition and Retention) Project

www.ulster.ac.uk/star

Supported by the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (Phase Four)

© A. Cook, K.A. Macintosh and B.S. Rushton, 2006

This publication may be reproduced in full or in part provided appropriate acknowledgement is made to the STAR Project and to the authors.

ISBN XXXXX

Published by the University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA

Printed in the United Kingdom by the University of Ulster, Coleraine


2


3

The STAR Project

Student Transition and Retention


Contents Page

Preface 4

The Role of Tutorials in Supporting New Students 7

Anthony Cook

Biomedical Sciences Tutorials 13

Anthony Cook and Violetta Naughton

Extended Induction Tutorials for ‘At Risk’ Students 37

Mark Huxham

Bread and Butter: a Lunchtime Workshop to Develop Mature Students’ Fundamental Learning Skills

51

Katherine Linehan

Acknowledgements 61


4

Preface The purpose of this booklet is to describe practices that have worked in some institutions to ease the stresses of students’ transition into Higher Education and to help to improve retention. This is important because student retention has become a significant issue both for students and for institutions. Students waste valuable time and resources if they drop out from a university course in which they have invested their hopes and aspirations and institutions waste money and staff effort. Early withdrawal of students frustrates the purposes of all. It is, however, just the measurable component of a more general malaise. For every student who takes the decision to leave a course there must be many more who are just able to pass, who are just able to cope with the stresses of Higher Education and who are failing to reach their full potential. Equally, there will be students at university who should never have joined or who should have joined a different course. They might be too immature, too deficient in the basic skills required or their talents might lie in different directions.

Every institution that has highlighted student retention as a significant component of its strategies has investigated the causes of early leaving and most will have drawn similar conclusions. The STAR consortium was formed at a time when the generality of these causes was becoming apparent but the responses to them were less clear. The first action of the consortium was to list a set of outcomes that, if achieved, would contribute to the alleviation of problems associated with student transition. These we published as the Guidelines for the management of student transition (Cook et al., 2005). The consortium then identified practices that were likely to assist the achievement of the outcomes in the Guidelines booklet and researched them.

The STAR booklets, of which this is one, are small compendiums of practices that have worked in some institutions to ease the stresses of


5

students’ transition into Higher Education. Many have been shown to improve retention. Many are the practical expression of institutional policies. All are descriptions of the dedicated work of teaching and support staff in the Higher Education sector who have introduced, maintained or developed practices for the benefit of students. The practices are derived from three sources. First, some were identified through survey. These were researched by STAR staff and written in collaboration with practitioners. Second, some staff volunteered to write about their practices independently. Third, some new practices were introduced and some existing ones evaluated using funding provided by the STAR project. Most practices have been described by staff and then validated by students through questionnaires or focus groups. All the reports contained in these booklets have been refereed independently and then approved by the STAR Steering Group.

This booklet describes the practices in enough detail to allow others to adopt or advocate that practice in their own institutions. The practices, however, should not be considered as definitive. They work in the institutions in which they were implemented by the staff who implemented them and with the students who participated. They are unlikely to remain the same. They will almost certainly evolve further even in the institutions in which they have been described and, when adopted elsewhere, will need to be adapted to suit local conditions. They are, therefore, offered as foundations on which to build appropriate practices to suit the staff, the students and learning environments involved.

REFERENCE Cook, A., Rushton, B.S., McCormick, S.M. and Southall, D.W.

(2005). Guidelines for the management of student transition. University of Ulster, Coleraine.


6


7

The Role of Tutorials in Supporting New Students

Anthony Cook, The STAR Project, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA

There appears to be little agreement in the UK’s Higher Education system about what a tutorial is and what it is for. The personal tutorial system has been a mainstay of student support in the UK’s Higher Education for generations. It is apparent in at least three guises: ‘Pastoral’ with each student having a specific tutor to guide them through all aspects of their university career; ‘Professional’ in which the role of the academic staff is to pass a student on to the centralised professional care of counsellors and advisors; and the ‘Curriculum model’ in which support is integrated into the teaching (Owen, 2002). Experiences reported in this booklet would indicate that the curriculum model of academic support is common in the UK but that the tutorials have to be integrated not only into the teaching and learning but also into the assessment practices (Cook and Naughton, 2006).

For the purposes of this booklet we consider the tutorial to be a small number of students (as few as four but sometimes rising to 20) discussing a subject with a tutor. With the increasing number of students entering tertiary education in recent years, small group teaching of this nature has been difficult to maintain since such teaching obviously involves a greater commitment of staff time, more space, increased timetabling problems and the potential for inequality between the experiences of different groups on the same course. Further, as has been pointed out by Griffiths (1999) small group teaching is “among the most difficult and highly skilled teaching techniques”. It thus requires tutors to be competent in an area of teaching that is not commonly practised in the other areas of


8

academic work such as research, administration and conventional lecturing.

In a review of American institutions Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) concluded that where the goal of instruction was the mastery of factual material then class size was not a critical factor. Even when student satisfaction is used as a criterion, there appears to be no improvements until class size falls below about ten (Mateo and Fernandez, 1996). Indeed a bimodal phenomenon has been observed, one interpretation of which would be that there are benefits in small group teaching (less than ten) by virtue of the increased interaction between staff and students and benefits in very large group sizes arising from the increased effort that staff put into the decreased contact time commitment.

Despite the evidence that group size has little influence on the acquisition of knowledge, there is no question that good small group teaching is effective in improving the relationship between staff and students, in encouraging a collaborative approach to learning and in modeling the teamwork common in the workplace (Griffiths et al., 1996). Further, the use of small group teaching as a component of a varied diet of teaching methods facilitates the fulfillment of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles for good practice in undergraduate teaching. Thus it potentially:

• Encourages contacts between students and staff;

• Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students;

• Uses active learning techniques;

• Gives prompt feedback;

• Emphasizes time on task;

• Communicates high expectations; and

• Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.


9

The practices reported here have largely been developed in response to two imperatives. First the need to retain students and second to address a study skills agenda.

Huxham’s tutorial system at Napier was introduced only for those students who showed those characteristics associated with students who left early and/or failed at Napier. This system has the advantage of targeting the most vulnerable group and focussing on their different needs. The tutorials support academic progress, student support and issues of assessment. They also serve to promote social integration.

In contrast to the practice at Napier the tutorial system introduced in the University of Ulster was a school wide initiative and compulsory for all students. Indeed in its final version attendance was required, since it became linked to assessment in a specific module. With an emphasis on group work and study skills it promotes social integration and the development of research skills. The problems of an extensive, standardized scheme like this are highlighted in that initially it was not well suited to meet the needs of some of the participants. In its second iteration, therefore, it was directed at those courses with similar requirements.

Finally, the practice at Sheffield was focused on the needs of mature students. The provision of specialised support for this minority of students was well received to the extent that the practice has now been made available to all students and extended to other departments.

There are at least three issues that deserve consideration when introducing schemes like these:

1. Selectivity

Some schemes are directed only at those who need tutorial support. Thus sessions in remedial mathematics, writing, study skills, etc. can be provided for those students who decide for themselves that they


10

need help. In two of our case studies (Napier and Sheffield) it is the staff that decide that help is required either by virtue of a student’s age or some measure of ‘risk’ that might lead to early leaving. Both schemes provide support for study and course content as well as directed support for the problems, which identified the group in the first place. Are these fair and equitable practices? Some students who might have benefited from the support but who were not in the target group were excluded even though they were enrolled on the same course. On the other hand, at Ulster, all students were included and the attendance was very poor until it was more focused and subjected to assessment. There are considerations, therefore, of striking a balance between offering universal support which may not suit all and focussed support which might exclude some who needs it.

2. Purpose

What are tutorial schemes for? When used appropriately they are well suited to promote the social integration of new students, to promote group working and to deal with individual problems. In circumstances in which new students can get lost in large anonymous modules the use of small group teaching can promote a feeling of identity with the course on which a student is enrolled. As found in the universal scheme in Ulster, however, a few tutors were not highly skilled and used the tutorial as an opportunity to lecture. A lecture to a small group is not a cost effective way to promote the acquisition of knowledge and defeats the social and individual support purposes of the scheme.

As outlined above, tutorial groups, which expand too much above ten students per tutor, start to lose any special purpose since they are too large for effective individual contributions and too small for the efficient transmission of information. Tutorial groups above ten can be effective if that group is further divided and students set individual group tasks and this is illustrated by the practice in Ulster,


11

which used the larger groups as a vehicle within which to promote the development of collaborative learning.

3. Training

It is inevitable that the quality of tutors will vary. Small group teaching is a highly skilled task and the effective use of this teaching technique, which is expensive in terms of staff time, requires the deployment of well-motivated and well-prepared staff. An effective tutorial system will require staff with the commitment and experience to perform these tasks well. These may not always be the most experienced teachers and it will be important to select staff for these roles on the basis of their training and skills.

REFERENCES Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for

good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin 39: 3-7.

Cook, A. and Naughton, V. (2006). Biomedical sciences tutorials, in Cook, A., Macintosh, K.A. and Rushton, B.S. eds. Supporting students: tutorial support, 13-35. University of Ulster, Coleraine.

Griffiths, S. (1999). Teaching and learning in small groups, in Fry, H., Kettridge, S. and Marshall, S. eds. A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education, 95-107. Kogan Page, London.

Griffiths, S., Houston, K. and Lazenbatt, A. (1996). Enhancing student learning through peer tutoring in higher education. University of Ulster, Coleraine.

Mateo, M. and Fernandez, J. (1996). Incidence of class size on the evaluation of university teaching quality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 771-778.


12

Owen, M. (2002). Sometimes you feel you’re in the niche time. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, 7-23.

Pascarella, E. and Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.


13

Biomedical Sciences Tutorials

Anthony Cook, The STAR Project, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA and

Violetta Naughton, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA

SUMMARY In response to increasing numbers of students leaving early and failing academically, a School policy of attendance monitoring and small group tutorials was implemented. In the first year of implementation (2003-04), the tutorials addressed study skills issues. They were poorly attended but did elicit positive responses from those students who did attend. The retention of students in 2004-05 was higher than that in 2003-04. Students complained, however, of the tutorials being too drawn out and unchallenging since they duplicated areas already experienced. In 2005-06 the tutorial scheme was revised and re-run. In this year it was shorter giving timetable space to address subject related and career issues. In addition, it was linked to a module and contributed 30% of the assessment for that module. Both attendance and performance continued to improve.

Keywords: First year teaching, tutorials.

INTRODUCTION

In 2003-04 courses in the School of Biomedical Science at the University of Ulster had an unacceptable number of students who did not progress to year two. Table 1 shows the progression decisions made in the summer of 2004.


14

Student Group

%R

esit

%Pr

ocee

d

%Fa

il

%LO

A

%R

epea

t th

e ye

ar

%Ea

rly

Leav

ers

N

Biology 15.6 31.3 25.0 3.1 12.5 12.5 32

Dietetics 17.6 76.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 17 Biomedical Sciences and Molecular Biosciences

28.8 30.8 7.7 1.9 21.2 9.6 52

Food and Nutrition 57.1 9.5 4.8 9.5 4.8 14.3 21 Human Nutrition 47.1 23.5 11.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 17

Optometry 22.2 72.2 0.0 2.8 2.8 0.0 36

Total 29.1 40.6 8.6 3.4 10.3 8.0 175

Table 1: Progression statistics for each student group in summer2003-04. The groups are determined by the tutorial groups instituted in 2004-05. LOA – Leave of Absence.

The proportion of early leavers, those having to repeat the year and those failing (about 25%) one caused concern, as did the proportion of those who had one or more modules to resit in the autumn (another 30%).

The courses in the School of Biomedical Science share some of the same modules; in particular, a human anatomy and physiology and an introductory chemistry module are common across the School. The Biology course has an individually tailored skills module, but


15

the other courses have skills delivery implicitly embedded in the subject-based modules.

RELEVANCE TO THE STAR GUIDELINES At its outset the STAR project researched, produced and published a set of guidelines based on the causes of student attrition and which pointed the way towards possible good practice. The STAR guidelines relevant to this case study are:

2.3 Induction activities should support the development of those independent study habits suitable for Higher Education.

2.4 Induction events should provide the foundations for social interactions between students and the development of communities of practice.

2.5 Induction activities should promote the development of good communication between staff and students.

3.1 The curriculum should be relevant to and inform students’ vocational aspirations early on in the course.

Cook et al. (2005)

THE PRACTICE – FIRST SEMESTER 2004-05 Four problems were identified and solutions put in place. The first problem was with a single module – Human anatomy and physiology. Many students failed both the coursework and the examination. A range of remedial measures was instituted. These included:

• A key word booklet that contained a simple account of the essential factual material;


16

• Additional tutorials following each lecture;

• Reducing the size of practical groups so that more one-to-one support could be given;

• A modified summative assessment strategy so that a larger proportion of the coursework and all of the examination was based on multiple-choice questions; and

• The distribution of an e-MCQ tool which allowed students to check their progress during private study time (voluntary formative assessment).

The second problem was with the introductory chemistry module the modifications to which have been reported elsewhere (McClean et al., 2006).

A third problem was perceived to be a lack of attendance. This cannot be quantified since no attendance monitoring took place. An attendance monitoring policy was instituted which entailed taking registers at each teaching session and contacting students with a record of unexplained absences.

The fourth problem was related to student study and assessment skills. Analysis of the entry qualifications of the cohorts showed that many who had failed or who required resists had offered AVCE as their prime entry qualifications. It was concluded that these, otherwise well-qualified students, were not familiar with teaching and assessment styles being deployed in year one. A tutorial system was, therefore, introduced for all students. The objectives of the system were:

• To make students more familiar with the learning and assessment requirements of Higher Education;


17

• To encourage students to work together – to develop a more collegiate approach to learning; and

• To provide a more friendly environment in which students could work with staff (most modules have in excess of 150 students).

Staff in the STAR project provided source materials with which tutors could work. Tutorial materials were either original or adapted from the GNU (Geography for New Undergraduates funded by the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning, Phase Two) project. The tutorial programme is provided in Appendix 1. The size of the groups varied between eight and 16 students and was determined largely by the availability of tutors.

EVALUATION – FIRST SEMESTER 2004-05

Attendance Tutors were asked to complete an attendance record for each session so that attendance could be recorded. Of the 91 possible sessions there are no records for 31. This may indicate that the tutorial was cancelled, that no students attended or that the tutor failed to submit an attendance record. The percentage attendance for each session is shown in Table 2.

There is considerable variation between groups both in the number of sessions that were reported and the percentage attendance at those for which there is information.

Seven sessions were organized and the greatest number of recorded attendances by any one student was six. This was often because the final evaluative session was not reported. As can be seen in Table 3, one group only reported two meetings. There was no simple


18

relationship between the number of sessions reported and the attendance or between the progression to year two and attendance. Improvements were seen in both progression and early leaving statistics compared with 2003-04. In particular, the biology and food and nutrition courses, which were amongst those with the poorest progression records, showed considerable improvement. With many changes taking place at the same time and the small number of students, however, it would be unwise to attribute cause.

Week Topic % Students Absent

% Students Present

% Not Recorded

2 Reading 30 52 18

4 Plagiarism 43 26 31

5 Referencing 35 41 24

6 Graphics 45 40 15

7 Marking 39 33 28

9 Examinations 23 23 54

11 Evaluation 21 17 62

Table 2: The attendance record for each tutorial session in 2004-05.


19

Organisation Attendance Progression Statistics (summer 2004-05)

Group No. (Course)

No. of Sessions Recorded

% Attendance % Progression % Early

Leavers n

1 (Biology) 2 6

2 (Biology) 4 31 77.1 0 35

3 (Dietetics) 6 93

4 (Dietetics) 4 94 96.0 0 25

5 (Biomedical Sciences) 5 31

6 (Biomedical/ Molecular Biosciences)

2 59

7 (Biomedical Sciences) 6 50

61.7 17.0 47

8 (Food and Nutrition) 6 31

9 (Food and Nutrition) 6 22

72.4 3.5 29

10 (Human Nutrition) 6 61

11 (Human Nutrition) 5 44

56.3 12.5 16

12 (Optometry) 3 25

13 (Optometry) 5 68 96.8 0 31

Total 76.5 8.6 183

Table 3: Records and outcomes from the tutorial groups in 2004-05. There were 13 tutorial groups of up to 15 students. Two students in Molecular Biosciences were included in tutorial group six with Biomedical Science. (Tutors were poor at keeping attendance records.)


20

Student Opinion

The monitoring of students’ opinion of this scheme took two forms. First a questionnaire was administered during the last week of term. Two different questionnaires were produced, one to be completed by those who attended most sessions and the second (printed on the reverse side) to be completed by those who were absent for most of the sessions. The second method used was a student focus group and was organised in the second semester (after the examinations were completed).

Student Questionnaire

Attenders

Thirty-seven students returned the questionnaire for those that attended. The questions were designed to discover whether the tutorial materials had been useful and to examine some attitudes towards the tutorial scheme. Over half the respondents agreed with positive statements about all the tutorial sessions. Over three quarters of the students agreed with the following statements:

“The information on referencing is a useful resource for later.”

“I now have a clearer idea of what type of graph to draw.”

“If I have to resit anything I will only get a maximum mark of 40%.”

“I have no trouble balancing my academic work with my part time job and my social life.”

Concerns that students had not become familiar with aspects of the University assessment system and had experienced trouble with


21

balancing out the various demands on their time are probably unfounded.

Students disagreed with the statement: “I did not have time to complete the exercises between tutorials”, indicating that the workload involved was probably not too great or that the work was not completed for reasons other than lack of time.

The free response questions asked for the best and worst aspects of the scheme. Most positive comments referred to the commitment of the staff and the assistance given to processes of adjustment to University life. The worst features most commonly mentioned were the timetable, with the sessions either being too early or too awkward or too long for the materials being completed and the repetition of material that had been done at school. Several students complained about the lack of emphasis on attendance with the implication that there was a minimum group size that is needed for a worthwhile tutorial.

Non-Attenders

Only 16 students returned the questionnaire designed for non-attenders. All the questions tested possible reasons for non-attendance. Those that these students agreed with included:

“My timetable was too full for me to attend all the tutorials as well.”

“The tutorials covered things I already knew about.”

“I concentrated my time on those aspects of the course that are being assessed.”

Statements with which students disagreed included:

“I did not think it worth attending after I could not complete the preparatory work.”


22

“Many tutorials coincided with assessment deadlines for modules.”

“I feel intimidated by academic staff.”

The interpretation of these responses is coloured by half of the responding non-attenders being from the biology course that has a parallel skills module covering some of the same material. The implementation of a blanket school level policy resulted in some duplication of content and subsequent disillusion. The non-biology students agreed even more strongly that their timetable was already full, that the tutorials were not compulsory and that they were more focused on the subject specific modules.

The free response section of the questionnaire indicated that many felt that the content was too basic and was covered elsewhere, that “the lecturer did not turn up most of the time” and that the timetable caused problems.

Students were also asked what would encourage them to attend. Where positive responses were received, they mentioned a more relevant and challenging content, a more sympathetic timetable and the need for assessment.

Student Focus Group

The focus group largely confirmed the findings of the questionnaire. Students were broadly supportive of what was being attempted but complained of long sessions on comparatively trivial aspects, e.g. graphs:

“There were a couple of weeks that were quite relevant but they dragged it out for so long. They could have done something in five minutes about it, but they dragged it out for the full hour and by the end you’re dying to rush out the door. We did ‘how to draw graphs’, and I thought,


23

‘we are at university so that we can draw a graph’ … For a full lecture?!”

One aspect for concern was an observation that some tutorials were largely delivered as lectures. This is clearly an aspect that needs to be addressed through appropriate staff development.

CONCLUSIONS – FIRST SEMESTER 2004-05

Attendance was poor. Sometimes only a few students attended but this varies with course and, within courses, between tutors. The causes of poor attendance were a lack of perceived relevance, a lack of assessment, some duplication of content with the biology course and, sadly, occasionally, a lack of staff commitment.

Timetabling, but not time, is seen as a problem. Thus tutorials encroaching into lectures, being immediately before assessments or at times which meant that students either had no free time between teaching sessions or too much, all presented problems. On the other hand, no one complained about the amount of work expected.

All sessions were seen by most as useful. Positive statements about the sessions rarely elicited strong responses except for those related to learning styles and referencing. No student complained that anything was too difficult. Indeed the complaint was that the material was not challenging enough. (The only comment received about the material being too difficult was from a tutor.) Sessions were perceived as drawn out and this is associated with tutors using a lecture style delivery rather than exploiting the benefits of small group teaching.

The social aspects of the process worked well as far as student-to-student contact was concerned but the students did not identify with their course group because of these activities.


24

A REVISED SCHEME The outcomes of the 2004-05 tutorials were used in 2005-06 to revise the scheme. In summary, the following changes were made:

The number of tutorials was reduced and the vacated time slots used to present materials that were related to specific topics and careers within the subject groups. This was in an attempt to relate a component of year one teaching directly to the vocational aspirations of student groups within an otherwise fairly homogenised diet of common BioSciences semester one modules.

The tutorials were linked to modules (Biostatistics and Study Skills for Life Sciences (BMS110 – 120 credits) and Biostatistics and Study Skills for Nutrition (BMS111 – 60 credit points)). Neither Optometry nor Biology students take these modules and were therefore not included in the revised scheme. The Skills for Biologists module (BIO102) was supplemented with tutorials unrelated to this scheme but which addressed the introduction of a personal development plan. The revised tutorials focussed on the production of a poster on a topic related to activities in the work places to which graduates of the various degrees might aspire. The product (the poster) as well as the process (group work) were assessed and contributed 15% of the module mark. In addition a short piece of written work (500 words) was required and contributed a further 15%. The poster was peer assessed against an agreed set of criteria but the written work was tutor assessed. Incorporating the tutorials into a module also had the effect of formalizing the attendance requirements such that there was now no doubt that the tutorials were a compulsory part of the course.

A workbook was produced which contained paper based exercises as well as outlines of the topics covered in the tutorials. Additional advisory material was included. Areas that had been heavily criticised by students the first time the scheme had run were removed from the tutorial support. In particular, graph drawing was moved to


25

the statistics component of a module where it was contextualised and separately assessed. The tutorial scheme is outlined in Appendix 2 and the contents of the booklet are given in Appendix 3.

The groups were slightly smaller than in 2003-4 with the maximum size being 15 and the average eleven. Within each tutorial group, students worked on the production of a poster in groups of three or four.

EVALUATION 2004-05 Evaluation of the scheme used course statistics and a student questionnaire. Overall attendance increased from 34% in 2004-05 to 74% in 2005-06. All but two students passed the module in which the tutorials were embedded at the first sitting. It is noteworthy that the group work and its assessment depend critically on attendance and the two poorly performing students also had a poor attendance record. There was no obvious difference between attendance at the tutorials and the subject specific lectures. The full progression statistics are not yet available but, as of April 2006, only 3% of the students involved in this suite of courses have left early (compared with 8.6% in 2004-05).

The questionnaire showed that students identified first with their course group (57%) and second with their hall of residence (33%). This is an important change from 2004-05 during which students felt that the tutorials had not assisted them to identify with their course group. It is clear that working together engenders greater coherence than attending together. Where students stated a preference for small group teaching they cited the following types of reasons:

“The smaller group made it easier to ask questions and have the answer explained.”


26

“I enjoy face to face sessions with the lecturers and watched their guidance given at tutorials where it is easier to ask questions .”

“In tutorials the lecturer explains things more clearly and answers questions in simpler language.”

“The tutorials are in smaller groups so there is a lot more teacher/pupil interaction, thus questions are asked frequently.”

There were few negative responses other than those related to the timetable (25% still wanted changes). Twenty-two percent of students were not clear about assessing the role of their peers in the group work element of the assessment.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS The scheme will continue since it has been demonstrated that it has engendered greater class coherence and greater awareness of key aspects of study in Higher Education such as team working, referencing and plagiarism. Nevertheless there are aspects that will evolve. In particular, the timetable will be revised with the possibility of moving one of the subject specific sessions nearer to the beginning of the term. With this set of vocational courses it is important for students to reinforce their understanding of the professional roles for which they are preparing early in the course. In addition, a minority of students were uncomfortable with the peer assessment that was integrated into the assessment of the group work. More detailed support for this aspect of their work will be prepared for future iterations. Finally the average class size of eleven is still too large and further tutors will be sought to support the programme.


27

CONTEXT

University of Ulster

4 campuses

26,360 students

Undergraduate: 20,490

Postgraduate: 5,870

Full-time: 17,825 (15,865 undergraduate, 1,970 postgraduate)

Part-time: 8,525 (4,620 undergraduate, 3,905 postgraduate)

>3,500 staff

School of Biomedical Science

580 FTE students in eight major undergraduate, largely vocational, courses

74 academic staff

Intake requirements vary with the course. Optometry requires AAB at A level, Biology requires BC at A level.

8.6% early leavers (2004-05)

REFERENCES Cook, A., Rushton, B.S., McCormick, S.M. and Southall, D.W.


McClean, S., Hagan, P., Ruddick, J.D. and Adams, K.R. (2006). Supporting first-year chemistry for students of bioscience, in Rushton, B.S., Cook, A. and Macintosh, K.A. eds. Supporting students through course design, 83-97. University of Ulster, Coleraine.


28

FURTHER INFORMATION http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/links/Workbook_Final.doc. – Workbook

link.


29

APPENDIX 1. Summary of Biomedical Learning and Teaching Tutorial Scheme (2004-05)

Wk Topic Scale/type of activity/content Led by

0 Registration week

Course cohort/course induction Course Director

1 Welcome School/presentation

Identify their tutorial group and tutor

Introduction to learning styles

Introduction to PDP

Head of School/ STAR project

2 Critical reading

Tutorial group/tutorial

Learning styles

Practise the skills required to read effectively and critically

The characteristics of deep and surface learning

Group tutor

3 Meeting with Advisor

Individual/interview

Attendance, Results

Careers, PDP

Advisor of study

4 Plagiarism Tutorial group/tutorial

Define and identify examples of plagiarism

Appropriate ways of taking notes both in lectures and from texts

Group tutor


30

Exercise on plagiarism

5 Referencing Tutorial group/tutorial

Cite references within text correctly

Write a bibliography correctly

Exercise – correcting reference lists

Group tutor

6 Graph drawing


Draw graphs correctly

Exercise – graph drawing, format selection

Interpreting graphical presentations

Group tutor

7 Writing/ marking schemes


Criticize work constructively

Construct model answers to assessment questions

Exercise – drawing up a mark scheme

Group tutor

8 Personal Development Planning

Individual/interview

Discuss Form One of the PDS (Personal Development System)

Advisor of study

9 Examination preparation


Prepare a revision timetable

Examination technique

Group tutor


31

Exercise – preparing model answers to past examination questions

10 Course review

Course group/ presentation

Time management, possible progress decisions, economics of failure

Course Director

11 Evaluation Tutorial group/tutorial

Review of the first term’s tutorials

Questionnaire/focus group discussion of the tutorial scheme

Group tutor


32

APPENDIX 2. Weekly Sessions (one-hour) Incorporated into Modules (2005-06)

Wk Topic Format and follow-up Led by

1 Studying at University (teaching methods; attendance monitoring; time management; introduction to PDP)

Introduction by tutor. Ice breaker and a discussion of student expectations. PDP

Study skills tutor

2 Learning styles (knowing how you learn best and developing appropriate learning strategies; reading with understanding; working in groups)

Discussion led and facilitated by tutor

Divide into groups for poster presentations; topics for poster given out (both BMS110 and BMS111)

Deadline for poster: week nine

Deadline for written assignment: week ten

Study skills tutor

3 Searching for information, plagiarism and referencing

How to search for scientific information in journals and on the internet; how to avoid plagiarising; and how to reference your material

Study skills tutor

4 Library tour II (assumes basic Library tour has already been undertaken)

Library quiz to be returned in week five during tutorial classes

Library staff


33

5 Preparing posters Tutorial on preparing posters

Discussion on chosen topic for the poster presentation

Study skills tutor

6 Writing skills (sentences, paragraphs, essay structures, punctuation, ambiguity); assessment criteria

Discussion on format of the written assignment and what assessment criteria mean; writing short essays in examinations

Study skills tutor

7 Optional lecture week Subject specific lecture or professional issues topic – at discretion of course team

Course specific


Course specific

9 Poster assessment and assessment feedback

Peer assessment to agreed assessment criteria

Study skills tutor


Course specific

11 Preparing for examinations

Overview: format of examination papers, course regulations, consequences of failure,

Course Director


34

re-sits, condonement, timetable for appeals

12 Optional lecture week

Subject specific lecture or professional issues topic – at discretion of course team

Course specific


35

APPENDIX 3. Study Skills Programme (2005-06), Workbook Contents

Contents Page

How To Use This Workbook 7

Introduction

Learning and Assessment in Higher Education

8

Time Management 13

Setting Targets 14

Week 1

Personal Development Plans 16

Learning 22

The VARK Questionnaire 23

Learning Strategies 26

Week 2

Concepts in Group Work 30

Searching for Information 36

Using Information 42

Avoiding Plagiarism 42

Week 3

Referencing 45

Week 4 Library Tour 48

Week 5 Preparing Posters 50

Writing Skills 57 Week 6

Self Assessment 63


36


37

Extended Induction Tutorials for ‘At-Risk’ Students

Mark Huxham, School of Life Sciences, Craighouse, Craighouse Road, Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH10 5LG.

SUMMARY

Biology students at risk are identified through the completion of a diagnostic test, which is based on the characteristics of early leavers. Those students identified as being at risk are offered the opportunity to attend a series of tutorials – ‘Biology Plus’. The tutorials were evaluated by focus group meetings and by comparing the performance of the ‘at risk’ group who attended the tutorials with a group of peers. Students found the tutorials friendly and helpful. None of those who attended dropped out but non-attendance remained the greatest risk factor for failure. The diagnostic test and an exemplar set of tutorial topics are appended.

Keywords: Tutorials, retention, at risk students.

INTRODUCTION

How best to support our students and ensure that they succeed academically and socially at university, is a question that has received much attention at Napier University in the last decade. In common with most of the Higher Education sector, the expansion in student numbers combined with pressures from funding councils has meant that attrition rates have become a focus for concern. In addition to such external pressures, staff accept a moral and academic duty to do their best to support students, which therefore generates internal concern to address retention issues.


38

In 2002-03, 11% of students entering first year study (all programmes combined) at Napier withdrew (‘dropped out’) during the year. An additional 15% did not pass sufficient modules to allow them to continue to the next year. The reasons for withdrawal and failure during the first year are complex. Research at Napier by the University’s Student Retention Project has shown that entry qualifications have a major effect; students with six or more Highers are four times more likely to succeed in first year than those with one Higher (Johnston, 1998). However, this factor interacts with others such as age (older students performing better), family expectations (pressure from family members to attend university being a negative factor) and hours of paid work during term time (with students working more than 16 hours per week at particular risk). Anecdotal evidence from colleagues with long experience of teaching first year students suggests that many of the students withdraw in the first few weeks of the new semester. Such evidence concurs with research highlighting the importance of the transitional period for students entering university. Davies (1997) suggests that a relative lack of confidence in the quality of support provided at classroom level might be the crucial factor distinguishing students that choose to withdraw from those that, despite having similar backgrounds, stay and succeed. Hence good academic and personal support is crucial during the first few months of a student’s university experience.

In the School of Life Sciences, this support has long been provided by a year tutor system. In addition, a system of induction tutorials was piloted in 2001-02. It allocated small groups of students to individual members of staff in the School. Groups met weekly for the first five weeks of term to allow students to get to know academics and to discuss personal and academic issues. These tutorials had mixed success; they were of limited use to some groups because the staff and students concerned lacked the time or because the staff were not involved in first year teaching and so could not provide direct academic support. A different system was implemented,


39

therefore, and has run for the last three years. This aims to focus support on students identified as ‘at risk’ of withdrawing, and uses staff already heavily involved in first year teaching and support. This report discusses these extended induction tutorials – called ‘Biology Plus’ tutorials – and evaluates their effectiveness.

RELEVANCE TO THE STAR GUIDELINES

At its outset the STAR project researched, produced and published a set of guidelines based on the causes of student attrition and which pointed the way towards possible good practice. The STAR guidelines relevant to this case study are:

2.1 Induction activities should familiarise students with the local area, campus and its support services.

2.2 Induction activities should highlight students’ academic obligations and the obligations of the staff to the students.



Cook et al. (2005)

THE PRACTICE The School of Life Sciences recruits approximately 100 students each year into the first year of the Biological Sciences suite. Since 2001, all new students have been asked to complete a ‘guidance questionnaire’ during induction week. This asks for basic factual and contact information, as well as details of appropriate qualifications. For two of these years, an extended questionnaire was used based on


40

research conducted by Napier University Student Retention Project, which led to the production of a diagnostic tool for the identification of students ‘at risk’ of withdrawal (Johnston, 2000). The tool consists of a questionnaire with 14 questions, with each possible answer carrying a score (Appendix 1). The sum total of scores allows the classification of the respondent into three broad categories of ‘risk’, with low scoring students being those most vulnerable. Two of the questions on the original questionnaire, relating to hours of academic study per week and whether the student had considered changing programme, were not relevant to students in induction week and so were omitted. The remaining questions score the following factors (in decreasing order of importance; shared numbers have equal weightings): (in decreasing order of importance; shared numbers have equal weightings):

1. Academic qualifications;

2. Age;

2. Hours of paid employment;

3. Family expectations;

4. Whether a motivation for enrolling in Higher Education was to avoid full time employment;

5. Term time accommodation;

5. Desire to do a particular course;

6. Whether the university was chosen because it was convenient to home;

7. Whether the student worries about having sufficient money; and

7. The length of commuting time to university.


41

The questionnaires were used to identify the 16-20 students likely to be most at risk of withdrawal each year. These students were contacted by letter and asked to attend a weekly ‘Biology Plus’ tutorial, consisting of a group of around ten students, starting in the first week of the semester, lasting one hour and running for ten weeks. Each group of ten students were allocated to a single member of staff, who ran all the tutorials for that group. Attendance was monitored and non-attending students were contacted by phone or post. Tutorials mixed academic support, tied to the teaching occurring that week, with more general support and discussion about adapting to university life. Example tutorial topics are given in Appendix 2.

The tutorials were evaluated in two ways. First, an external facilitator was invited to run an hour-long focus group with six of the students involved in the first year of the project (who volunteered their time). This session explored the students’ experiences of and attitudes to the support tutorials and reported these anonymously. Second, a group of ‘control’ students, with relatively low questionnaire scores but who were just above the threshold for inclusion in the tutorials, were selected each year. The mean marks obtained in first semester modules were compared between ‘control’ and ‘treatment’ groups.

RESULTS

Attendance

Attendance was high initially, but tailed off during the term. In total, 50%, 57% and 45% of the selected students attended 50% of the sessions in 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively – these students are subsequently referred to as ‘regular attendees’. Between one and three students did not attend a single session each year, despite being reminded by phone calls and letters.


42

Non-attendance was an important indicator of risk. For example, 63% of those students who attended one or no sessions in 2003 either withdrew from or failed their first semester. No regular attendees failed or withdrew.

Evaluation

The students who attended the tutorials regularly were enthusiastic. The focus group recorded that students found the tutorials useful and liked their informality:

“It was quite informal – like a friendly get together; it was easy to ask questions.”

“It gave you confidence to speak up and ask questions.”

When asked about how they would like to see the sessions run in the future, students wanted more time spent on them and suggested that they continue into the next semester:

“It was a shame they were only for one hour … I’d like it to continue for next term.”

When asked about their peers who had poor attendance at the tutorials, the group felt this was the result of laziness:

“They couldn’t be bothered – it was too early for them.”

However, there was some resentment at the monitoring of attendance in first year classes in general:

Question: “You feel you are under surveillance?”

Answer: “Yes! … It should be our own choice about whether we go or not.”

The mean marks of the regular attendee ‘biology plus’ students in their four first semester modules were compared with those of a control group. They were 45% vs 49%, (‘biology plus’ vs control), 48% vs 40% and 54% vs 56%, in 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively.


43

None of these differences were statistically significant (two-tailed t-test).

DISCUSSION Student feedback (both informal and from the focus group) showed that regular attendees valued the tutorials and, in fact, wanted more such support. The informal nature of the tutorials was particularly appreciated. The quantitative comparisons (of mean marks obtained in the first semester) suggest that students who do attend perform as well as the comparator group. Whilst this clearly does not constitute a controlled trial of the tutorials, it does at least support the qualitative evaluation in suggesting that the tutorials are useful.

Non-attendance, however, remains a major challenge and correlates strongly with the risk of poor academic performance and withdrawal. All ‘biology plus’ students who failed to attend were pursued with either letters or telephone calls; part of the rationale of this focused support was to allow this kind of follow-up. This caused some resentment among students. Achieving the correct balance between proactive pastoral care and encouraging students to be fully autonomous, independent learners is very difficult and it remains one of the key challenges for the staff involved. It is likely that the failure or withdrawal of ‘biology plus’ students who did not attend, despite the efforts to encourage them to, result from complex factors beyond the influence of academics. There is a danger that zealous policing of attendance is counter-productive.

In conclusion, the use of a diagnostic tool to provide extended tutorials for ‘at risk’ students does allow staff to focus their energies on vulnerable students and has been generally well received by the students involved. Non-attendance at these sessions is an indicator of risk; future work exploring the reasons for non-attendance is a priority and may help improve the current system.


44



Davies, P. (1997). Within our control? Improving retention rates in FE. Further Education Development Agency, London.

Johnston, V. (1998). Student progression through the first year of the modular programme, 1996/7. Student Retention Project, Napier University. Edinburgh

Johnston, V. (2000). Identifying students at risk of non-progression: the development of a diagnostic test. BERA, Cardiff.

FURTHER INFORMATION http://www.napier.ac.uk/qes/studentretentionproject/SRPhome.asp –

Student Retention Project at Napier University


45

APPENDIX 1. The Diagnostic Questionnaire (Note: questions seven and ten are omitted for the ‘biology plus’ programme.)

1. How old were you at the beginning of October?

18 years or less;

19 to 23 years; or

24 or more years.

2. How many Highers do you have? (If you have Highers and A levels then calculate 1 A Level = 2 Highers and select the nearest category below)

None;

1-2;

3;

4-5; or

6 or more.

3. How many A Levels do you have?

None or N/A (calculated along with Highers in 2);

1;

2;

3; or

4 or more.


46

4. What type of accommodation do you stay in?

At home;

Napier-owned accommodation;

Private accommodation sharing with other students only; or

Other.

5. If you have a job during term-time, for how many hours are you normally employed each week?

No job;

1-10 hrs;

11-15 hrs; or

16+ hrs.

6. How long does it normally take to travel from where you stay during term-time to your normal Napier site?

Less than 15 minutes;

16 minutes to 1 hour; or

More than 1 hour.

7. How many hours of academic study do you normally do in a week (including timetabled hours)?

Less than 25 hrs;

26-35 hrs; or

36+ hours.


47

8. Do you worry that lack of money will force you to abandon your programme?

No

Yes

9. Did you gain your place through the clearing system?

No

Yes

10. Since coming to Napier, have you considered changing your programme?

No

Yes, and I have changed

Yes, but I haven’t changed

11. Did family expectations contribute to your reasons for choosing to study in Higher Education?

No

Yes

12. Would you say that one of the reasons for deciding to go on to Higher Education was that you didn’t want to work full-time yet?

No, I would have been happy to work full-time.

Yes, I preferred Higher Education to working full-time.

13. Did you come to Napier to study a particular course?

No

Yes


48

14. Did you choose to come to Napier because it was convenient to home?

No

Yes

NOTE: The answers to these questions are weighted by factors which are specific to Napier University students and which were arrived at through comparisons of the characteristics of early leaving and persistent students. An on-line version is available at: http://www.napier.ac.uk/qes/studentretentionproject/Diagnostictest/Dpageone.htm


49

APPENDIX 2. Example Programme of Tutorials – Week-by-Week Activity

1. Icebreaker. Introductions, explanation of the role of the

tutorials and discussion of expectations, hopes and fears (usually after writing these down anonymously and then grouping them into categories).

2. Tackling short answer problems, set by module leaders, referring to topics covered in the first two weeks of teaching in theory modules. Discussion of any new issues, such as problems with matriculation and timetabling.

3. Discussion in small groups of ‘student support case studies’. These describe (fictitious) students who have problems with accommodation, motivation, family and social issues and funding. Students asked to discuss best ways of overcoming these problems. The idea here is to discuss problems that are common amongst some first year students in a non-threatening environment.

4. Discussion of the first coursework assignments due for submission in the next week or two. Focus is on what makes a good or bad answer – model answers given to the group and discussed.

5. Short answer problems set by module leaders, dealing with topics covered in lectures and which usually cause problems, are tackled in small groups.

6. A ‘free’ session to respond to any new or ongoing problems that may have arisen. We usually refer back to hopes, fears and expectations in this session. As a back up, an exercise giving short ‘biographies’ of great figures from science (such as Mendel, Darwin and Pasteur) and


50

asking students to identify their contributions and their names is used. This exercise helps re-enforce the history of science learned by some of our students and give context to these names for those without biology backgrounds.

7. Revision and examination preparation. Past papers are read and discussed, students agree on aspects of good and poor answers in small groups.

8. Second, major piece of coursework is due in two weeks. This session is used to discuss any problems with this coursework, and techniques to overcome these problems. Examples of good work are produced to help this.

9. A final examination preparation and revision session, with guided reading from the core textbooks.

10. Social event and ‘summing up’ – in the student cafe or bar.


51

Bread and Butter: a Lunchtime Workshop to Develop Mature Students’ Fundamental Learning Skills

Katherine Linehan, Department of Biomedical Science, University

of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN

SUMMARY A learning skills workshop for mature students was established in the Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield. These workshops, which ran over the period of one academic year, have afforded mature students in the Department the opportunity to develop their generic study skills whilst also enhancing their peer support network. At the request of the students involved and as an acknowledgement of the value of the project by management, the workshops have been allocated a formal slot in the departmental timetable for the next academic year.

Keywords: Mature students, learning skills, peer support.

INTRODUCTION Sheffield has a centralized society for all mature students within the University. However, many of the social activities are evening events that tend to preclude students with children. Several students in the Department have pointed out that this isolates them.

To encourage integration and develop study skills the Department of Biomedical Sciences runs a tutorial system for all students. As mature students are in a minority, it is unfortunately rare for another mature student to be in the same group. In addition, mature students have reported that if they have not studied for some time these sessions can fail to address their specific needs.


52

Funding was sought from the STAR project to set up a series of lunchtime learning skills workshops, exclusively for mature students. These informal sessions were designed to develop students’ generic study skills such as essay writing, note taking and revision strategies. It was also anticipated that these sessions would build mature students’ confidence, offer them peer support and give them an opportunity to experience wider aspects of university life in addition to scholarship.

RELEVANCE TO THE STAR GUIDELINES At its outset the STAR project researched, produced and published a set of guidelines based on the causes of student attrition and which pointed the way towards possible good practice. The STAR guidelines relevant to this case study are:

2.3 Induction activities should support the development of those independent study habits suitable for Higher Education.



Cook et al. (2005)

THE PRACTICE

Ten learning skills workshops took place during the academic year 2004-05. Administrative tasks included booking rooms, photocopying resources and liaising with the students to determine convenient meeting times. The academic tasks included the design


53

and preparation of the resources. Approximately three hours of preparation time was required for every hour of contact time. The meetings were held in a coffee shop at the Students’ Union to generate an environment conducive to social as well as academic discourse.

Throughout the programme of workshops (Table 1), students were asked to adopt a reflective attitude to analysing their approach to study at university. The goal of all sessions was to encourage the students as a group to generate strategies they could adopt to improve their learning as individuals.

ORIGIN OF THE PRACTICE

Discussion with several students during practical classes highlighted the need for more substantial academic and pastoral support for mature students within the Department. It became clear that whilst the departmental tutorial system met the learning and social needs of the majority of students (who are 18-21 and have always been in full time education), it failed to address many of the issues pertinent to mature students such as social isolation, lack of confidence and time management issues.

EFFECTIVENESS The feedback from all the students who attended the workshops has been extremely positive. The students felt that the sessions supported their learning and appreciated the opportunity to meet informally with other mature students. They felt the content of the sessions was appropriate and directly relevant to their own needs. One student in particularly felt that:


54

Session Student activities

One and two

Topic: Introduction to Gardner’s (1983) theory of Multiple Intelligences.

Students asked to critically reflect upon how they currently study.

Using a handout that contained a brief description of one of the eight ‘intelligences’ students were asked to propose a number of revision strategies for a person who favours that particular learning style.

Individual students devised a personal revision strategy based on their preferred learning style to be adopted for the forthcoming examination period.

Three and four

Essay writing and marking criteria.

Sub-divided into two groups, students were invited to answer the question: ‘What is the examiner looking for in a good essay?’ and ‘Where do you gain and lose marks when writing an essay for assessment?’

Students asked to compare their answers to the marking criteria for assessed essays in the departmental handbook.

Collectively, as a whole group, students generated a strategy for constructing essays.

Five Informal lunch and social.

No specific agenda was set for this workshop; rather it was designed as an opportunity to further develop a group identity. Students from all levels of study were present and the group discussion was focused on issues pertinent to individual modules on the course.

Six

Post examination debrief.

Students were asked to reflect upon their recent performance in university examinations.


55

Six continued

Common problems that they had difficulties with were examination technique and stress.

As a group, students devised tactics for tackling different types of examination questions including MCQs, short answers and essay questions.

The group discussed possible techniques for diminishing stress. Each student identified one strategy they were going to try to employ to decrease their stress levels at the next set of examinations.

Seven Literature searches and referencing scientific texts.

This was an informal session with students raising general questions about how to search scientific literature and how to construct bibliographies in the appropriate format. The biggest issue that was identified was a lack of confidence using computers to search electronic databases.

Eight, nine and ten

Critical analysis (three workshops in response to demand).

As a group, students discussed what they understood by the term ‘critical analysis’.

Using a framework of stimulus questions, students were asked to critically analyse two journal articles individually.

Individual analysis of each paper was followed by a group discussion. This process focused on encouraging students to support their assertions about a scientific text with appropriate evidence.

Table 1: Details of the ten learning skills workshop sessions.


56

“Being able to set the agenda for the sessions was empowering and helped me to feel as if what I said was important.”

Difficulties have arisen in trying to maintain the momentum of the workshops, particularly near examination periods. Commitments that the students had outside of university life frequently made organizing a convenient time to meet as a whole group extremely difficult. Several answers to this problem were proposed during the course of the year, including holding evening and weekend workshops. However, despite the students’ conviction that the workshops were important to them, commitments outside of university always took precedent.

Students found the work on learning styles particularly helpful in encouraging them to evaluate how effective their current learning practices were. One student felt, that:

“By attending the workshops, I’ve learned that I need to explore different ways of approaching learning and not just to look at it as purely reading and note taking.”

The group’s willingness to critically evaluate their own practice was extremely encouraging and proved a very valuable stimulus to group discussions. However, the students did not or could not develop these reflections into a personalised study strategy probably because the workshops could not be organised at regular intervals. In addition, high workloads on the course prevented many members of the group from trying new approaches to learning. Thus one commented:

“I have started to experiment with my learning style a little, although I find that the workload of the course tends to make you stick to familiar ways of learning, as you feel that you can’t spend time doing something where you might find that it doesn’t work.”


57

Feedback from the staff in the Department was very positive. Personal tutors for two of the mature students felt that they (the mature students) were contributing more in tutorial discussions and that they seemed to be engaging better with the other students. The staff who taught them and the mature students themselves, have reported an increase in their overall confidence levels since they attended the workshops.

PROPOSED FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS The workshops are going to continue throughout the next academic year in a slightly different format. The sessions have been allocated a timetable slot and instead of being exclusively for mature students the sessions are going to be open to any student who requires learning support within the Department. Participants will be referred to the workshops by their personal tutor. This will help manage numbers in the group, keep personal tutors informed of any difficulties a student is having and ensure that the students who require learning support obtain it. Opening up the sessions to all students will generate a more inclusive environment whilst still giving mature students the opportunity to socialise with their peers. It will also allow more students in the Department to access the resource.

The mature students in the Department were consulted before introducing the new format. All of them, without exception, were supportive of the idea and felt that it may offer the further advantage of integrating them more fully into the rest of the student body. In addition, they felt that having a greater number of students in the workshops next year would mean that the absence of one or two students from the group would not prevent the workshop from going ahead as has been the case this year.


58

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Leaving aside the evaluation of this practice the main resource required is the time and commitment of staff. These tutorials required ten staff hours for delivery and some administrative support for the duplication of materials and the necessary bookings, etc.

CONTEXT

This project was an individual initiative. As the Mature Students’ Liaison Officer for the Department the author works closely with many of the mature students on a one-to-one basis. Much time associated with this role is spent repeating similar advice to several students or discussing the problems that arise from mature students feeling isolated. Setting up the learning skills workshops allowed the condensation of the time spent giving the students support and also generated an opportunity for the students to build social networks with their peers.

This initiative also received strong support from the Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department who has also encouraged the integration of the workshops into the formal teaching timetable.

University of Sheffield 24,000 students; 5,500 staff

Department of Biomedical Science

429 undergraduates; 35 postgraduates and 200 staff

Course title Biomedical Science

Size of intake 100 (September 2004)

% Mature 5.4

% Living at home No data collected

Relevant entrance data, BBC (two science A levels, including


59

standard offer, average points score on intake

chemistry)

23.1 (September 2004 intake)

Retention data 98%

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is grateful to Julie Askew, a postgraduate student, who conducted the bulk of the evaluation.



Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Basic, New York.


60


61

Acknowledgements This booklet is the result of the activities of the STAR consortium. The STAR Project was funded through the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (Phase Four) by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland. The ideas and impetus of the project have derived from the enthusiasm of a core group of academic staff:

Tony Cook (University of Ulster)

Mark Davies (University of Sunderland)

Bill Norton (University of Liverpool Hope)

Helen Richardson (University of Manchester)

Brian S. Rushton (University of Ulster)

Steve Waite (University of Brighton)

This group has been ably assisted by STAR development officers Katrina Macintosh, Sinead McCormick and Suzanne McLaughlin and placement students Leslie-Anne Buchanan, Gina Smith and Dave Southall.

The project’s external evaluator, Mantz Yorke (University of Lancaster), has also made constructive contributions.

The printing of this booklet has been with the sympathetic cooperation of Stanley McCahon of the Reprographics Department, University of Ulster.

Documents

Supporting Students: Tutorial Support