experiencing and supporting change: from lecture to interactive groupwork

This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 14 November 2014, At: 15:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Experiencing and SupportingChange: from lecture to interactivegroupworkJenny Stewart a & Coralie McCormack ba Faculty of Managementb Centre for the Enhancement of Learning, Teaching andScholarship , University of Canberra , PO Box 1, Belconnen,ACT 2616, AustraliaPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Jenny Stewart & Coralie McCormack (1997) Experiencing and SupportingChange: from lecture to interactive groupwork, Teaching in Higher Education, 2:2, 167-180,DOI: 10.1080/1356251970020206

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251970020206

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1356251970020206

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251970020206

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1997 167

Experiencing and SupportingChange: from lecture to interactivegroupworkJENNY STEWART & CORALIE McCORMACK*Faculty of Management and *Centre for the Enhancement of Learning, Teaching andScholarship, University of Canberra, PO Box 1, Belconnen, ACT 2616, Australia

ABSTRACT In the higher education setting, few studies focus on the personal reflections ofthose who seek to change their teaching and the way students learn in their classrooms. Thispaper interweaves two personal journeys: the journey of a lecturer seeking to change the natureof student interaction in her classroom, and that of a colleague supporting her through thechange process. These personal reflections raise a number of issues relevant to a variety ofteaching situations including: the function of learning outcomes; the nature of power relation-ships in an interactive classroom; and the nature of support for both students and the lecturerin this different learning environment.

Introduction

One of the most consistent criticisms of the quality of teaching provided by tertiaryinstitutions has been the over-dependence on one way of teaching and learning—the formal lecture (Gow et al., 1992). Criticism of the formal lecture has beenrecorded in the literature covering several decades (for example, Bligh, 1972;Dunkin, 1983; Jackson & Prosser, 1989; Ramsden, 1992; Baldwin & Ling, 1993;Clerehan, 1994; Waugh, 1994).

Good teaching occurs when students deploy deep approaches to their learning(Ramsden, 1992). Research on student learning suggests that students are less likelyto adopt a deep approach to their learning when 'the teaching flow' is one-way, asin the formal lecture (Biggs, 1989, p. 17).

To enable learners to move beyond the superficial approach ... the teachermust invite them into the process of working out their own understandingsand syntheses of the material, developing their individual point of viewtowards it. (MacGregor, 1990, 23, in Mannison et al., 1994, p. 36)

Deep learning is most likely to occur in teaching contexts where there is: a positivemotivational environment; a high degree of learner activity; interaction with others(peers and teacher); and a well-structured knowledge base (Biggs, 1989). In

1356-2517/97/020167-14 © 1997 Carfax Publishing Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

168 J. Stewart & C. McCormack

summarising accounts of classes where interactive structures have been introducedMannison et al. (1994) suggest several elements common to each of the interactiveapproaches. All presented a well-defined structure, set group goals, acknowledgedthe importance of the products of each group, and set aside class time for interactivework between students.

As teachers, we may be aware of the criticisms of the formal lecture and thesuggestions for encouraging deep learning in our students. However, change at anindividual level to the way we teach and the way students learn in our classroomsdoes not necessarily follow. Change involves risks and fear of the unknown. Therehave been few explorations reported in the literature of the feelings, the risks and thedifficulties, experienced by those who seek and become involved in changing theirteaching and their students' learning. One exception is the description by White(1996) of 'the trials and tribulations of a fictional anthropology professor' who,frustrated by the limitations of the traditional lecture-based presentation, introduceda problem-based format into his classes (p. 75).

In the higher education setting few studies have focused on the personalreflections of those who have taken up the challenge offered by the critical reviewsof the formal lecture and sought to change the nature of interaction in theirclassrooms. Few accounts report personal responses to questions such as:

What triggered the change?What were the risks involved?How was the change designed and implemented?How did it feel along the way?What were the difficulties?What were the rewards?Where to next?

Also, the process of supporting change has seldom been explored from the point ofview of both the lecturer initiating the change and the colleague supporting thechange. Where mention is made in the literature of lecturer/consultant interactionsthe primary concern is for the 'statistical' effectiveness of the interactions. Interac-tions are often described as 'structured intervention' (Marsh & Roche, 1993) andbased on the premise 'that faculty seldom improve their teaching unless pressuredto do so' (McKeachie, 1983, in Shannon et al, 1996, p. 51).

This paper shares with the reader a story of change. It is a story about changingfrom a traditional lecture-based approach to teaching to a more interactive ap-proach, the feelings experienced and the difficulties encountered during this change,and the collaborative process which supported the change. The change is presentedthrough the eyes of those involved in the process—the lecturer and her supportingcolleague—to capture for the reader personal and hitherto hidden aspects of thechange process. The paper begins by locating the change process in its specificcontext. The context is that of a new university and the participants in the processare the lecturer (Jenny), her colleague (Coralie) and the students enrolled in thesubject Public Policy 1 during first semester 1996.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Experiencing and Supporting Change 169

The Context

The University of Canberra (formerly the Canberra College of Advanced Educa-tion) is an institution specialising in the education of professionals in a number offields, including management, journalism and teacher education. The universityalso offers undergraduate degrees in social sciences, applied economics and appliedscience. Public Policy 1, the subject (or unit) chosen for the pilot project describedin this paper, like most public policy subjects at undergraduate level in Australianuniversities, is characterised by the lecture and tutorial mode of presentation.Lectures are used to present the basic concepts, tutorials reinforce learning throughreading and discussion. While most classes feature some self-directed work (such asworking on case studies) the students' role in the learning process is essentially apassive one. They absorb and reproduce what the lecturer and the prescribedreadings say.

Public Policy 1 attracts students from across the university who see a need toimprove their understanding of policy-making. Few of the students have studiedpolitical science previously, so no prior knowledge of the workings of governmentcan be assumed. Taken over one semester, the unit aims to give students aframework for understanding policy as a form of collective decision-making involv-ing interests, ideas, institutions and values. Theory and practice must be effectivelyinterwoven in teaching the unit.

The lecturer came to the university as a professional political scientist with astrong research record extending to the post-doctoral level, but with little teachingexperience. Her colleague for this project was a member of an academic unitestablished within the university working collaboratively with academic staff toenhance the quality of teaching and learning in the university. The 24 undergradu-ate students enrolled in this unit were predominantly full-time, Australian students,with nearly equal numbers of male and female students enrolled.

The Change Process

The above discussion provides the contextual background to the change. Whatfollows is our description of our experiences through each of the stages of ourindividual and collaborative endeavours. The description is presented under fiveheadings: The Impetus for Change; Establishing a Basis for Working Together;Acting; Reflecting; and Moving Forward. The description also includes students'feelings about the new sessions implemented by Jenny.

The Impetus for Change

Jenny's Experience

My decision to change the way I taught the unit did not happen suddenly. Rather,a number of dissatisfactions with the conventional lecture/tutorial format crys-tallised over time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


In previous semesters I had taught the subject Public Policy 1 much as I hadbeen taught at undergraduate level—a clear programme of lectures and tutorialsdesigned to cover the ground. However, I suspected this conventional lecture-tuto-rial format, which assumed students would read widely in the area, was notencouraging students to begin to think deeply about the role of government insociety. Students were missing 'the richness' of the subject. Students' written workshowed that they had real difficulty in moving beyond the specific issues of eachcase to the deeper concepts, to do with government and its role, which lay behind.

It seemed to me that part of the problem lay in the students' extreme reluctanceto read even the pared down reading lists set for each tutorial. How could theydiscuss the core issues when their knowledge base was so limited?

If I could get them to read more deeply and more widely, they might find iteasier to make the connections between the broader concepts and the specifics ofthe particular case studies discussed in the literature. However, there was anobvious problem in doing this. If I simply set heavier reading loads, the studentswould be turned off completely.

The breakthrough for me came when I started to think about the learningoutcomes I wanted to achieve through expanded reading. As well as confidence indealing with the substantive issues of the unit, it was important for students todevelop more general skills which they could apply in other units and in theirworking lives. Business leaders repeatedly stress the need for communication skillsin the workplace and in particular at management levels (Karpin, 1995). It seemedto me that a unit such as mine should assist students to identify key issues in a pieceof written work, and then to develop, express and argue for their own views on thoseissues. By combining these themes I came up with the following learning outcomes.

• Improved confidence in handling basic concepts in policy analysis.• Improved reading and argumentation skills.• Deepening of knowledge and understanding for answering essay topics.

My main concern was that the students should acquire confidence in using theanalytical concepts of public policy and that this should be reflected in their writtenwork. As I had acquired my own confidence in using analytical concepts throughextensive reading, it naturally seemed to me that this was the way to achieve asimilar outcome for my students.

Gradually, though, through my discussions with Coralie, I began to realise thatthere might be other, more effective ways, of achieving the desired learning out-come. I began to think about using the lecture time in more creative ways. Insteadof using every lecture to present material, why not use the time to get the studentsreading in class?

Establishing a Basis for Working Together

Coralie's Experience

At our first meeting after our decision to work together I felt it was important toestablish guidelines for our relationship. I felt our interactions needed to be based

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


on an affirmation of confidentiality and trust and a valuing of each others' knowl-edge and experience. These principles need not be in the form of a writtendocument. It is the process of discussing these principles during the initial meeting,rather than the keeping of a written record of them, which lays the groundwork forsuccessful continuing interaction. These principles are often difficult to express inwords, and may in fact seem devalued when they appear typed impersonally on awhite sheet of paper.

I also felt it was important not to arrive at our meeting with an agenda, but thatour interactions be directed by Jenny's concerns. I saw my role in these interactionsas one of supporting a process through which Jenny developed, implemented andreflected on strategies related to her area of interest. I felt I could do this byengaging in active listening and constructive questioning. In a peer support situationthe use of a question-based approach which values active listening and providessupport through constructive feedback focuses on your colleague's needs ratherthan giving answers, imposing knowledge as 'the expert', or offering advice, criti-cism or judgement. Questions which begin with what, how or when, or seekclarification, support peer interactions. Using these question stems allowed me togive Jenny relevant feedback which made sense in the context of our work together.While sharing resources and literature can also facilitate your interactions, they donot always directly meet your colleague's immediate needs. They are often moreuseful during reflective moments to support a seed sown through constructivequestioning.

As our first meeting drew to a close we began talking about learning outcomes.From this discussion we agreed on four questions to guide our reflections during thetime between our initial meeting and the next meeting.

• What outcomes do I want students to achieve from their readings?• What teaching approaches could achieve these outcomes?• How will I/they know when they have achieved these outcomes?• What problems/difficulties might I encounter?

Our responses to these questions would form the basis of our initial discussions atthe next meeting. I felt our initial meeting concluded positively, with the commit-ment and energy needed to move beyond discussion to action.

Acting


In our continuing discussions over the next few weeks we moved on to explore theidea of integrating reading into the lecture time. Our discussions led us to considerdifferent ways of using lecture time and to thinking about how the time scheduledfor this subject could be used differently. This exploration necessitated continual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


questioning of: our ideas and the assumptions behind these ideas; the nature ofclassroom interaction; the feelings of those involved in these new ways of interactingin a lecture; and the likely outcomes of these interactions for those involved.

My role as active listener and constructive questioner continued to be impor-tant during these discussions, though it was not always easy to be consistent withthis role. Active listening requires concentration—giving your full attention to thespeaker over an extended period of time. A conversation in a peer support relation-ship requires more of you as a listener than other types of conversation where aslistener you often tend to listen only enough to make a reasonable reply. Activelistening requires your considered responses and this is where the constructivequestion stems helped out by directing my conversation responses in a positive waytowards Jenny's needs.

Supporting is, however, more than active listening and constructive question-ing. There are times when being a shoulder to lean on is important. There are alsotimes when giving advice based on your own experience is helpful. While ourrelationship was based on the principle that each of us is an expert on our ownsituation, I felt that if the advice I gave made sense to Jenny, and was given in aspirit consistent with the parameters guiding our relationship, then the advice wouldmove the situation forward.

Jenny's Experience

Through my discussions with Coralie I was beginning to see the outcomes of whatI called an 'interactive reading-based lecture format'. Each week, the studentswould read the pieces, reflect on them, write something down (in answer to somewell-chosen questions) and then develop their ideas in conversation with others inthe class. At this stage, I was unsure how I could get these things to happen andhow I could differentiate the new kind of session in practice from tutorials. Theessential difference in my own mind was that the students would, in a sense,generate their own lecture by working through a sequence of reading, discussion inpairs and bigger groups, and with me.

The unit for that year had already started running, but I did not want to waituntil the following year to give the new idea a try. I decided to put together a 4-weekmodule, to start after the mid-semester break. The first week would introduce thestudents to the general idea and explain to them what I was trying to achieve. Ineach of the succeeding weeks, I planned a 15-2-hour interactive session.

I realised that, as lectures were not compulsory and the students had manyother demands on their time (particularly towards the end of the semester), I wouldhave to give them some incentive to attend the interactive lectures. I decided tobuild each session around one of the essay topics I had set and sell the students onthe idea that attending the lectures would enable them to write better essays (and,of course, get higher marks).

One of the hardest things to do in preparing for the sessions was to find suitablereadings. The journal literature was too specialised for what I had in mind, and thetext-books were too 'packaged'. In the end, I used extracts from books about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


politics and policy which dealt with the big issues, but in ways which were directedto an intelligent general audience, rather than to academics, on the one hand, orstudents, on the other.

I found I spent a great deal of time 'pre-imagining' each session. I wanted thestudents to feel free to take the discussion in directions they found interesting, butI also wanted there to be a clear structure, with rough timings for each part of thesession. From my previous experience with workshops, I knew that unless you gavethe group clear directions, there would be a lot of aimless milling-about.

Because one of the main problems with tutorials was the tendency for somestudents to dominate, I was keen to make the group dynamics of the interactivesession quite different. I decided to start students off in pairwise discussions of thetopic, then build up to small groups and then to a plenary session.

Finding the right question was also difficult. I experimented with numbers ofdifferent questions in my mind, imagining how the students might deal with each,and the difficulties they might have in making progress towards some sort ofresolution. Whenever I got stuck, I went back to my list of learning outcomes andasked myself, 'How will answering this question help them achieve that particularoutcome?'

For each week's session, I distributed a programme setting out what we weregoing to do, together with the reading for the week and a feedback sheet withquestions designed to elicit the students' reactions to the session, any suggestionsthey might have for improvements or change the following week. An outline of thefirst week's session, which investigated the existence of a general interest in politics,is included as Appendix 1. In the sessions which followed students developed andput forward their arguments in a privatisation versus public enterprise debate(session 2) and considered how governments deal with major conflict in society(session 3).

Reflecting

Jenny's Experience

Immediately after each session, I wrote notes to describe what had happened, andwhat my feelings were about it. I shared these notes with Coralie at a meeting soonafter the lecture. These meetings were very important for me in clarifying that I was,indeed, on the right track, and for discussing anything that bothered me.

I found that for the most part, the sessions seemed to run themselves. All thework, from my point of view, had gone into the preparation. I found the interactivesessions to be a completely different experience from giving a conventional lecture.I thought each session out as far as possible in advance, but once the format wasrunning, its success depended upon the students rather than on me. I couldinfluence the direction of discussion and clarify points, but the motive force behindit came from the students.

Rather to my surprise, the students enjoyed talking about the 'big' questions(such as how far should government intrude on people's lives and how do we go

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


about talking about issues such as this). Students (or at least most of them)responded well to the opportunity to read, generate their own ideas and discussthem. They liked bouncing ideas off each other and seemed generally much moreconfident about doing so than in tutorials.

For the lecturer in this situation the questions 'How much prompting of thegroup discussions should I give?' and 'Did I steer them too much?' are of partic-ular concern. I decided to 'drop-in' on the small group discussions, to answerany questions and to see how each group was responding. As each session wasrelated to an essay topic, I made sure that those students in the group who hadselected that week's topic for their essay had opportunities to talk about connec-tions with the way they saw their essay developing.

In the plenary sessions, I played a more active role, as very often groups hadtaken different approaches to the topic and it was necessary to discuss the differ-ences in a way which would illuminate underlying themes, rather than turn into adebate about the substantive policy issues themselves. This level of involementseemed to work well. The students made use of my presence, but were notconstantly looking to me to 'pronounce' on what they had said, as tends tohappen in traditional lectures.

The in-class reading was moderately useful, although even with short pieces,more time was necessary to get through them than I had anticipated. However, Ibelieve the real value of the interactive sessions was that it made the students'essay-related reading more productive than it would otherwise have been. Severalstudents in the group substantially improved upon their essay mark relative toprevious marks for tutorial papers. The average essay mark for those attendingthe interactive sessions was a credit. For the non-attenders, the average was apass. While the group attending the interactive lectures was clearly more moti-vated than the other group (and would no doubt have performed better anyway)I feel that at least some of the difference between the two groups may be at-tributable to the effects of the sessions. It seems to me now that for subjects ofthis type, where the student is not doing a major in the area, reading pro-grammes, no matter how well-designed, do little to help students grasp and useanalytical concepts.

Formal lectures still have a role to play in this, as in most subjects. Thestudents themselves suggested that a balance between interactive and traditionallectures was the way to go. However, the experience showed me that the place ofthe traditional lecture is much more circumscribed than I had thought. It is morea way of controlling the student-lecturer interaction than of encouraging it. Iwrote after the last session: 'I don't think I can go back to the conventional formnow!'

There were advantages in terms of my own professional development. Theexperience of designing and implementing the new lecture format made me thinkfar more deeply than would otherwise have been the case about the meaning anduse of key concepts. It also showed me how important it is to engage studentsdirectly in learning if they are to integrate the new knowledge with their own.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


The Students' Experience

At the end of each of the new sessions students were given time to reflect on theirexperience and the opportunity if they wished to share these reflections with thelecturer. Students responded to the following questions:

• Did you find the session valuable?• In what ways did you expand on your original understanding of the topic?• Can you relate this discussion to your essay question?• Any other comments?

Students' responses indicated that right from the first session they were very positiveabout the new kind of lecture. Typical responses included:

Much better format for learningI thought the new process worked wellA great way to learnA useful exercise and more sessions should be run like this.

The major benefit for students of the new approach to lectures was a 'deeper levelof understanding'. They felt this was achieved through:

Being able to highlight the concepts and apply them to everyday, practicalexamples which I believe makes for better learning

A lot more knowledgeHaving to explain my own ideasHearing a wide selection of views and then to read a selection which tied

the session togetherA more critical thought processLooking at issues in a way I hadn't before

The changed nature of interaction among students was appreciated by the students.Several students commented that it was good to be able to put forward their ideas-in the pair-wise discussions without being concerned about being over-ridden bymore dominant members of the group. Students also appreciated the increased levelof interaction with the lecturer and the more personal/individual nature of thisinteraction. Students felt the balance of student and lecturer input to the sessionswas about right.

Students' feelings about the success of the attempts to link the in-class discus-sions to the essay topic were mixed. Most students were able to relate the discussionto their essay topic. Some, however, did experience difficulty in linking the discussionof readings with essay topics. They felt undecided, commenting that perhaps the linkwas there, but at that stage was unclear. Only one student felt she could not relatethe discussion to her essay question.

Overall, student attendance at the interactive lectures was good. Each sessionwas attended by approximately 14 of the 22 enrolled students. However, the timing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


of the sessions (weeks 11, 12 and 13 of first semester) meant that the demands ofassignments for other units kept some students away.


I feel that being there for your colleague during the important times in your worktogether is vital. Being there involves meeting regularly at a mutually agreed timeand place. However, it also involves more than regular meetings. It involvesrecognising, and reacting to the feelings and stresses generated by a process ofchange which moves participants into unknown and unexpected territory, which inthis situation pushed Jenny beyond thinking to doing.

The 4 weeks of semester during which the new sessions were implementedwere particularly stressful for Jenny. For example, Jenny said after the first of thesesessions that she felt absolutely terrified. She remarked that 'Even though the groupwas a good one, and we felt comfortable with each other, the interactive formatmeans that the lecturer surrenders a good'deal of the control she/he is accustomedto'. Meeting together after each of the class sessions in informal, pleasant surround-ings was one way we could share this stress and facilitate our reflective thinking. Atthese meetings we discussed concerns which had arisen for Jenny during each of theinteractive sessions such as 'How do you guide student discussion without being toointrusive?' and 'How do you formulate questions which are not too big (studentstend to flounder) or too small (students become bored)?'

Having a structured process to guide our reflections was also important at thesestressful times. Immediately after each of the new sessions Jenny wrote notes todescribe the experience and her feelings about it. During the next hour we met toreflect on the session using Boud's (Boud et ah, 1985, 1993) description of thereflective process as our guide. Using this guide, reflection involved us in a processof reconstructing our experiences by describing the experiences, describing theemotions associated with the experiences, and then trying to make sense of ourexperiences and our emotions.

For Jenny, reconstructing the experience involved recounting the experiencewithout interruption or judgement from me as the listener. Attending to feelingsfocused our discussions on the positive feelings about the experience and allowed usto work through the negative emotions, so potentially obstructive feelings could beused constructively. Trying to make sense of the experience and the emotionsinvolved making links between previous experiences and the current experience,testing those links against other experiences and appropriating the knowledgegained—making it part of our practice.

We both found that the process of reflection itself could be stressful. Theprocess of reflection for us involved critically examining our practice and ourfeelings, and opening up both our practice and ourselves to another (a colleaguefrom outside our discipline and a recent acquaintance). At this time I found myselfquestioning my knowledge and wondering: 'Will I be found wanting in some way?''What will this mean?' 'What will I do?' Using the three-part reflective processdescribed by Boud et al. (1985, 1993) directed our reflections to constructive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


outcomes for future practice, preventing us from being bogged down in the manypositive and negative emotions generated by the new approach to teaching andlearning and the support needed for this change.

Moving Forward

Jenny's Experience

The success of the interactive lectures has turned out to be one phase in acontinuing process of reflection and change for me as a teacher. I have been able tosee ways of reorganising other units I teach, so as to use the class-time moreproductively.

The public policy unit was a small one in terms of numbers (24 students), butI intend trying out the same techniques in bigger classes (60 + ) in organisationtheory and public management. Starting with simple questions, making use ofpairwise discussions and showing students that they already, in a sense, know a lotabout the subject are good techniques for any subject.

I must confess that the question of reading still bothers me, particularly formore reflective and discursive subjects, such as many subjects in the social sciencesand humanities. Where these subjects are 'add-ons' for students doing business orother types of degree, it is unreasonable and also pointless to expect students to readwidely by themselves and to share their reading in productive ways with others intutorials.

Even where students are studying a major in politics, I would suggest that thereare far more effective ways of getting into the heart of the subject than requiringlarge amounts of reading each week. Carefully chosen readings, not necessarily fromthe academic literature, combined with group discussions which the studentsthemselves control to some extent are more likely to bring that 'ahhh' of recognitionwe all strive for.

Conclusions

Our reflections raised a number of issues relevant to a variety of teaching situationsand disciplines. Denning learning outcomes helps focus sessions on student learningand allows the students and the lecturer to make connections between intentionsand achievements for the module and the unit. Asking (and trying to answer) thequestion 'What do I want students to be able to do as a result of this session', helpsthe lecturer make the links between intentions and expectations of a specific session,and the purpose and direction of the subject as a whole, and also to the course ofstudy students are undertaking.

Classroom interaction in situations where students are active learners involvesa different power relationship between the teacher and the students. The traditionallecture format maintains a clear boundary between the lecturer and the students.The lecturer remains safely behind a desk or lecture podium which necessitates littlecontact with individuals or contact as an individual with students. Interactivity blurs

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


this traditionally well defined boundary. Interactive sessions involve the lecturer in'surrendering a good deal of control'. For the lecturer this new way of interactingcan be stressful. 'The challenges involved in this sort of teaching, requiring as itdoes high level skill in communicating and personal interactions, should not beunderestimated...' (Dearn, 1995). On the other hand, there is an enormoussatisfaction in being part of a different kind of classroom interaction, to hear 'a reallearning buzz', and to know that the way you teach and the way students learn inyour classroom, have changed. You know then that you can't 'go back to theconventional form' of lecturing.

Students need support to be successful active learners. The lecturer can take onthe role of facilitator of student discussions by:

• encouraging students to develop their own ideas and support each other inthis process through the use of small group discussion techniques, such asbuzz or pyramid groups;

• providing readings which go to the heart of the issue being investigated, ina way that is accessible to students; and

• asking questions of students which encourage them to generate their ownquestions; to question an author's assumptions and viewpoints, as well astheir own and each others.

Lecturers, too, need support in this different learning environment. Supporting acolleague through active listening and constructive questioning focuses on thecolleague's needs in their context. This supportive relationship is founded onequality, respect and trust. Being there for your colleague to support the reflectiveprocess during critical times in your work together can be the element in yourrelationship which more than any other, contributes to mutual professional andpersonal development.

Supporting a colleague through the process of thinking deeply about their ownteaching and about the students they teach is a very rewarding process. While thisprocess naturally involves both 'highs' and 'lows', the personal and professionaloutcomes are ongoing, and can extend beyond the initial relationship to be sharedwith others.

REFERENCES

BALDWIN, G. & LING, P. (1993) To lecture or not to lecture, The Higher Education Research andDevelopment Society of Australasia Inc News, 15(3), pp. 6-7.

BIGGS, J.B. (1989) Approaches to the Enhancement of Tertiary Teaching, Higher EducationResearch and Development, 8, pp. 7-25.

BLIGH, D.A. (1972) What's the Use of Lectures (Harmondsworth, Penguin).Boud, D., KEOGH, R. & WALKER, D. (Eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning

(London, Kogan Page).BOUD, D., COHEN, R. & WALKER, D. (Eds) (1993) Using Experience for Learning, The Society

for Research into Higher Education (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


CLEREHAN, R. (1992) Yes and no: what value the lecture, The Higher Education Research andDevelopment Society of Australasia Inc News, 16, pp. 10-11.

DEARN, J. (1995) Engaging with Science Through Discussion and Collaboration, A paper based on atalk given at the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching, UniversityTeaching Workshop, 13-14 February 1995, University of Canberra.

DUNKIN, M.J. (1983) A Review of Research on Lecturing, Higher Education Research andDevelopment, 2, pp. 63-78.

Gow, L., KEMBER, D. & SIVAN, A. (1992) Lecturer's views of the teaching practices: implica-tions for staff development needs, Higher Education Research and Development, 11, pp.135-149.

JACKSON, M.W. & PROSSER, M.T. (1989) Less lecturing, more learning, Higher EducationResearch and Development, 14, pp. 55-68.

KARPIN, D.S. (1995) Enterprising Nation: renewing Australia's managers to meet the challenges of theAsia-Pacific century, Report of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and Managment(Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service).

MANNISON, M., PATTON, W. & LEMON, G. (1994) Interactive teaching goes to uni: keepingstudents awake and learning alive, Higher Education Research and Development, 13, pp.35-47.

MARSH, H.W. & ROCHE, L. (1993) The use of students' evaluations and an individuallystructured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness, American EducationalResearch Journal, 30, pp. 217-251.

RAMSDEN, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London, Routledge).SHANNON, D.M., TWALE, D.J. & HANCOCK, G.R. (1996) Use of instructional feedback and

modification methods among university faculty, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Educa-tion, 21, pp. 41-53.

WAUGH, G. (1994) The loneliness of the long-distance lecturer, The Higher Education Researchand Development Society of Australasia Inc News, 16, pp. 8-9.

WHITE, H.B. (1996) Dan tries problem-based learning: a case study, in: L. RICHLIN (Ed.) ToImprove the Academy, 15, pp. 75-91 (Stillwater, OK, New Forums Press, and theProfessional and Organisational Development Network in Higher Education).

WILSON, R.C. (1986) Improving faculty teaching. Effective use of student evaluations andconclusions, Journal of Higher Education, 57, pp. 196-211.

Appendix 1: session 1, week 11

Question: In politics, is there such a thing as the general interest or only special interestspretending to constitute a general interest?

Introduction by the lecturer 5 mins

Individual time 5 minsWrite a sentence or two giving your initial ('off the top of your head') responseto the question.

Pairs 10 minsForm a pair with the person beside/behind you and discuss your answer withthat person.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


Groups 15 minsForm a group of four with one other pair.Discuss your answers.If you agree, develop your reasons and record them on butcher's paper. If youdisagree, list your points for and against on the butcher's paper.Share your responses by plasti-tacing your butcher's paper to the wall.

Summary by the lecturer and students 15 minsWhen all the posters are up move around and read what others said.Lecturer summarises the main points made by students to form a group-gener-ated lecture.

Reading and reconsideration 25 minsChapter from J.D.B. Miller's The Nature of Politics (Harmondsworth, Penguin,

1965).Read Miller's response to the question.Reconsider your original answer in the light of the group discussion and

Miller's response.Record your personal answer at this point in time.

Reflection 5 minsTake a moment to complete the reflections sheet.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

44 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

experiencing and supporting change: from lecture to interactive groupwork

Documents