research-based pedagogies in vocationally …...research-based pedagogies in vocationally orientated...
TRANSCRIPT
Research-based pedagogies in vocationally orientated HE:
lecturers’ ambitions and students reactions
Becky Turner, Carole Sutton, Claire Gray, Julie Swain & Reema Muneer
PedRIO, Plymouth University, [email protected]
Session Overview
• Context of CBHE & Research Methods teaching
• Project overview• Findings
– Students attitudes to research methods
– Academics expertise and teaching of research methods
– Implications for pedagogy and practice
College-based HE
• FE recognised as centres of vocational training – which can be embedded in HE
• Provide HE to ‘local communities’ • Longstanding contribution to HE,
usually at the sub-degree level
• CBHE students options to graduate at end of an FD, or progress on to obtain a full degree
Parry, 2009; Turner et al., 2009
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Further education (FE) colleges in England have had a longstanding commitment to the provision of higher education (HE) (Parry, 2009). The legacy of colleges teaching sub-degree level qualifications, e.g. Higher National Diplomas / Certificates and more recently Foundation Degrees, means that colleges HE provision is generally perceived as restricted to this level. Foundation Degrees were designed to bridge the academic-vocational divide between universities and colleges (QAA, 2002). They built on the traditional FE values of work-based learning and employer engagement, but were designed to further develop students’ academic knowledge (HEFCE, 2009). This was recommended firstly through the provision of the environment and resources ‘appropriate’ for HE study (HEFCE, 2003; 2009), but also, and more crucially, lecturing staff embracing pedagogies of HE teaching e.g. research informed teaching, problem-based learning and research-based curricular (ref). Secondly, completion of the foundation degree represented an entry route into a full honours degree as students were presented with the opportunity of ‘topping up’ to a full degree through their validating partner (HEFCE, 2009). Extracts from the draft paper that may be relevant here: The subject of research and scholarship has received considerable attention since the focus was placed upon FE colleges to support the expansion of higher education following the Dearing Report. However, much of this attention has centred on the problematic nature of these activities, for those working in the sector. Numerous studies (Turner et al., 2009; Gale et al., 2011; Young, 2002) have examined the challenges faced by those seeking to become research active from a range of different perspectives. Factors such as the institutional culture, the lack of resources - particularly the pressures of time and money, the need for staff development to promote scholarly activity and research, as well as the professional isolation of research active staff, are all cited as hindering the development of the capacity for research and scholarship on CBHE (Anderson et al., 2003; Turner et al., 2009; Turner et al., 2014). Child (2009) attributed the difficulties experiences by those seeking to become research active to the differing measures of professional currency within HE (research activity as assessed at the time Child published her analysis was through the research assessment exercise which has since been superseded by the research excellence framework) and FE (the levels of recruitment, retention and attainment, as well as Ofsted ratings) as exerting an impact on the potential for colleges to become research active. Child (2009) also cited the institutional perspectives of colleges as consumers rather than produces of knowledge undermining the potential of colleges to become centres of knowledge production. These challenges persist despite recognition by agencies such as HEFCE (e.g. 2003; 2009) of the potential contribution such activities can make to the growth of colleges as centres of higher education, and indeed the QAA (2013) citing the need for scholarly activity (as a minimum) to support the development of colleges HE provision. This paper does not seek to repeat these well versed arguments; rather consider a different perspective to the research and scholarly activity debate within college-based HE – students. Existing work relating to the role of research and scholarly activity is focused on the perspectives of those teaching or supporting HE in colleges (e.g. Turner et al., 2009, Mason et al., 2010). To date little work has considered the attitudes or experiences of those studying within CBHE to these activities. Where such work has taken place it tends to focusing on capturing students’ perceptions of their lecturers engaging in research (e.g. Schofiled & Burton XXXX), a somewhat controversial topic in universities (e.g. ref), or offers good practice on how research-based pedagogies can be embedded within the sector (e.g. Healey et al., 2014). In this paper we will examine the teaching of research methods from the student perspective. We will examine students’ attitudes and experience of this subject, relating these to the pedagogical approaches used to support students learning about research methods. Drawing on a national data set we will frame this analysis against two clear agendas. Firstly, the need for college-based HE students to be adequately prepared for the workplace (if they graduate following completion of a foundation degree) or further study (if they progress to ‘top up’ to a full honours degree), as well as the wider pedagogical debate taking place in the HE sector around the value of research-based pedagogies in supporting the academic development of students.
Research Methods in CBHE• Research ‘traditionally’ not the preserve of FE
Colleges• Expectation for lecturers to be scholarly in their
practice (e.g. QAA, 2013)
RM teaching in University-based HE:• Lack of a pedagogical culture around RM
teaching• Negative student attitudes / resistance to RM
teaching• Under resourced, limited investment in resources
supporting & training of lecturers(British Academy, 2012; MacInnes, 2009; Rice et al., 2001; Williams et al., 2008)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This is partly due to the limited recognition gained for those who go beyond the standard practice of including contemporary knowledge in their teaching (Healey, 2000) but more widely there is evidence of inadequacies in the training and development of those responsible for teaching research skills to undergraduates (British Academy 2012; MacInnes, 2009). Although the benefits of integrating research methods teaching into undergraduate curricular are firmly established, rarely is this the case (MacInnes, 2012; Rice et al., 2001). Commonly research methods are taught as a standalone module to large cohorts of students in preparation for them undertaking a dissertation (Benson & Blackman, 2003). Teaching research methods in this way has been noted to create a false perception amongst students of research methods equating to learning a technical skill, particularly with respect to quantitative research methods (Benson & Blackman, 2003; MacInnes, 2012). Balance resource efficiencies of large group delivery against the benefits on small group student working on real world projects, perhaps with employers or class based simulated projects. + getting students to understand the epistomological underpinning of research and how theory and method relate, this going beyond simply a technical skill. Students taught using this approach demonstrate limited awareness of the relevance of these research methods to other aspects of their degree programmes, creating further problems in the future when required to apply this knowledge in the workplace (MacInnes, 2012). This has been recorded as been particularly acute with social science graduates (Rice et al., 2001). A further consequence of standalone delivery was exemplified by a study which examined the teaching and learning of this subject with Sociology students. They demonstrated resistance to learning about research methods, particularly aspects of the curriculum relating to quantitative data, this was despite quantitative research methods been widespread in the degree as a whole (Williams et al., 2004). Similar studies have recorded a preference amongst students to write essays rather than analyse data, disinterest, anxiety and a lack of confidence with respect to the use and analysis of quantitative research methods (MacInnes, 2012; Shober et al. 2006 Williams, et al 2008).
Project aims• Map Research Methods (RM)
provision within colleges• Identify patterns of generic and
embedded practice• Identify potential skills gaps / CPD
needs for CBHE lecturers• Ascertain student confidence in
methods of data collection & analysis;
Presenter
Presentation Notes
(C) The HEA funded us run a project mapping RM across partner colleges in the disciplines of anthropology through to business sports and tourism ,marketing law politics and sociology identifying current practice and to capture data particularly around how RM is delivered ie as standalone modules or embedded within a substantive module and by whom. We also wished to identify the profile (qualifications / training / research)of the staff delivering RM. The second strand of this project was capturing data on the student experience and confidence in knowledge understanding and application of RM. One of the outcomes in addition to the report mapping was to consider the implications of the results in terms of skills gaps of college staff and what CPD is required should it be the case that they are not actively engaged in research. BUT OFCOUSRE these project aims hint at an assumpiont that Unis do it better than CBHE however …. However, the extent to which these pedagogies have been adopted is variable (Wagner et al., 2011).
Methods• National study • 2 On-line surveys:
– Staff: RM delivery, knowledge / confidence in teaching RM, resources to support RM teaching and opportunities for CPD
– Student: RM teaching experienced, awareness of methodological concepts, preferred methods of learning about RM & availability of resources
• Focus group 9 staff, Message board discussion
Further details of the research: Gray et al., 2015; Gray et al., 2013
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Following an in-depth review of literature relating to research methods and pedagogies of research methods teaching two questionnaires were designed, one for completion by students and a second to be completed by lecturers working in college-based HE involved in teaching research methods and programme leads. Outcomes of the lecturer survey which relate to the content / delivery of research methods courses and the support available for those teaching on this provision have previously been reported in a complementary paper (Gray et al., 2015), however, we will report data relating to the pedagogic approaches used. These data were captured through a series of closed questions listing pedagogic approaches that may be used to support research methods teaching (e.g. problem-based learning) and methods of delivery (e.g. lectures, seminars). The student questionnaire captured demographic information (e.g. gender, age). The student questionnaire was split into five sections. Through section one demographic (e.g. gender, age) and contextual information (e.g. college name, programme studying, level / mode of study, background qualifications) were collected. In section two we used a four-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree, with an additional opt out category) to capture students reactions to a number of statements regarding different research methods potentially encountered during their studies. Section three used a series of yes / no response questions to gauge students’ awareness of methodological concepts. Next we explored preferred methods of learning about research methods and the resources (e.g. library / software) available to support their learning. Finally we captured their confidence in undertaking both qualitative and quantitative research using a 10 point scale. The questionnaire was piloted with further refinements made as a result of feedback. The questionnaires were administered using Survey Monkey and available for completion between the 8th March and 14th April 2013. In order to gain insights into research methods teaching across college-based HE in England, we distributed the surveys extensively through partnership email lists in the South and North West and via groupings such as the Association for Collaborative Provision of Higher Education in England, the Staff and Educational Development Association, Universities Council for the Education of Teachers HE in FE group and the college-based HE mailing lists of the HEA. As the organisation and role of college-based HE varies across the four nations of the UK (Gallacher et al., 2006), we took the decision to focus specifically on provision in England. Although this may be seen as geographically limiting the scope of the study, it provides congruence with the organisational parameters of education policy in England. A total of 162 responses were yielded from the lecturer survey and 98 from the student survey. Whilst we acknowledge this is a small response rate for the student survey, it is comparable to related studies (e.g. Williams Sociology paper) where recruitment may have been perceived to have been ‘easier’ as these studies were institutionally focused, rather than an open call disseminated via networks where there was a reliance on key individuals to promote participation to students. Likewise, given the short timeframe over which the survey was open, and also the provisional nature of this study we felt this was sufficient to provide initial insights into this under researched area. Student response rates to on-line surveys are lower, even when incentivised, than paper-based surveys (Nulty, 2008). However, on-line administration does have clear advantages with respect to reaching diverse sample populations and broad geographic coverage. The disciplinary groupings designated by the HEA were used to identify respondents from the social sciences. More on the analysis
Students experiences of RM
• Most respondents had experience of RMHeard of
% (n)Studied
% (n)Research Methods Approaches
Qualitative 89 (65) 78.3(54)Quantitative 92.9 (65) 85.3 (58)
Heard of% (n)
Studied% (n)
Research Methods Concepts
Validity 87.0 (47) 65.3 (32)Reliability 87.3 (48) 70.1 (34)
Operationalisation 15.6 (8) 14.6 (6)Ethics 91.0 (61) 73.8 (48)
Epistemology 31.8 (21) 14.0 (8)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Student respondent profile: A total of 98 social science students completed the survey. 36.7% (n=36) Male, 63.3.7% (n=62) female. No age data. Posses a diverse range of educational qualifications with respect to what was their most recently studies, ranging from secondary school qualifications, professional qualifications (e.g. NVQs) to A-levels (the more traditional qualification those entering HE possess The majority of the sample were studying at Level 4 (34.7%) and level 5 (49.0%) with the remainder studying at Level 6 (10.2%) and Level 7 (5.1%). One respondent did not indicate their level of study. Knowledge and experience of research methods Over half the sample, 53.1% had previously studied courses that included research methods training. 79.6% had or were studying research methods as a component of their current programme, of these 68.8% had a named module in research methods. As an indicator of student knowledge of basic research methods we asked respondents to indicate if they had ‘heard of’ and ‘studied’ a range of research methods concepts and quantitative analysis techniques.
Students experience of RMHeard of
% (n)Studied
% (n)
Quantitative Data AnalysisBar Chart 94.6 (53) 80.4 (41)
Frequencies 81.5 (44) 66.6 (32)Crosstabulations 19.2 (10) 7.32 (3)
Standard Deviation 65.4 (34) 55.5 (25)Mean 94.6 (53) 86.3 (44)
Percentages 98.2 (55) 86.0 (43)Hypothesis Testing 64.7 (33) 47.8 (21)
Statistical Significance 58.8 (30) 53.5 (23)
Correlation 88.9 (48) 68.1 (32)Chi-Square 22.6 (12) 22.7 (10)
Qualitative Data AnalysisThematic analysis 12.5 (14) 15.5 (9)
Conversational Analysis 40.0 (26) 22.8 (13)
Attitudes to RM Teaching• Students asked to rate the perceived difficulty of aspects
of RM (10 point scale: 1 not difficult, 10 very difficult)
– Qualitative methods: mean 3.95– Quantitative methods: mean 4.2
• Relationships evidence between perceived difficult of qualitative or quantitative methods and attitudinal / confidence statements around aspects of RM e.g.:– Relationship between those who disagreed with: ‘I found
school maths easy’ and negative perceptions of quantitative methods;
– Those who agreed ‘prefer writing an essay than using statistic’ recorded a higher difficulty with quantitative methods
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Overall quantitative methods are perceived as more difficult than qualitative methods. (Quantitaive mean 4.2, compared to qualitative mean=3.95 on a scale from 1=not difficult to 10=very difficult). The level of difficulty could reflect students’ views on whether the discipline was more closely associated to being an arts/humanities than science/maths subject. When asked to place their social science discipline on a scale from 1 (Arts/Humantities) to 10 (Science/Maths) the distribution shows a wide distribution across the scale Arts/Humantities with a mean of 3.96 and slight negative skewness (-0.046), see figure x. below. Further correlation analysis of the perception of the discipline by perceived difficulty of quantitative (rs=0.03, p<0.05) and qualitative methods (rs= 0.073, p<0.05) also revealed no statistical association The next stage of the analysis was to explore the data relating to the level of agreement to a range of statements on attitudes/confidence/perceptions of different aspects of qualitative/quantitative methods and perceived levels of difficulty. Qualitative Methods Mean 3.95, median=4. 1=not difficult, 10=very difficult. Respondents who agreed with statements on the ease of qualitative methods, confidence in analyzing data and asking people questions expressed less difficulty with qualitative methods that those who disagreed. The sample had less study experience of qualitative data methods as well. Those who disagreed about enjoyment in reading biographical stories had lower levels of difficulty with qualitative methods than those who agreed. This result could be an anomaly given that life history/narratives are methods found in specific sub-disciplines e.g. auto-ethnography in feminist and health narratives. Those students who agreed that students shouldn’t have to study qualitative research had a lower difficulty score, however the score was for those disagreeing was below 5.00.
RM content students are taughtRM tend to be taught by non-specialists
“Every member of staff at college may potentially be called upon to deliver research methods as it is seen as a generic subject – we don’t have the luxury of specialism in any meaningful sense”.
RM generally taught stand alone modules, though in larger colleges some tendency to integrate it into other aspect of course provision
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Who teaching RM RM in CBHE tend to be taught by ‘anyone’, RM specialists seem to be a rare comodity: “All stand-alone modules delivered by people with postgraduate research methods qualifications”. “Every member of staff at college may potentially be called upon to deliver research methods as it is seen as a generic subject – we don’t have the luxury of specialism in any meaningful sense”. Reinforces the role of the non specialist RM teacher – vocational settings – all staff contributing to aspects of RM teaching. Raises issues of staff competencies and updating. Expectation that HE college teachers will be able to do this – elephant in the room? Not engaged in research – makes it difficult to engage with it at a practical level. HE in FE Gail et al noted for teaching HE in FE and FE through increased delivery hours on timetables leaving less time available for active research/scholarly activity. What students are taught with respect to RM Respondents were presented with a comprehensive list of ‘subjects’ that could be taught in order to develop students’ knowledge and competencies with research methods (See Table 3). It is noteworthy that lecturers tended to concentrate on ‘literature searching’ and ‘qualitative research methods’ in their teaching with ‘reporting research’, ‘quantitative research methods’ and ‘research paradigms’ receiving least attention (Table 3) This outcome is not anticipated, echoing the situation in university-based research methods teaching (ref). Literature searching and qualitative research methods are perceived as the more palatable aspect of research methods teaching (ref). A deficit in research methods teaching has been discussed with respect to the teaching of research methods in university-based social science provision (British Academy, 2012; MacInnes, 2012). We have also considered the challenges of negative student attitudes and anxiety leading to resistance amongst students to learning about this subject (ref). Include something about student profile and the range of background qualifications? Although ‘reporting research’ was included, only XX% of respondents taught this with respect to ‘literature searching’ (which XX% taught) despite in many cases it drawing on similar skills (e.g. formulating arguments, synthesising literature). It could indicate the lack of familiarity generally with this aspect of the research process as studies (e.g. Anderson et al., 2003; Schofield & Burton, 2013; Turner et al., 2009) have documented a general lack of confidence and knowledge surrounding the reporting and dissemination of research outcomes for college-based HE lecturers seeking to become research active. Therefore a lack of knowledge and familiarity of this process may be directly impacting on the extent to which this is taught. The most significant finding is that only XX% of respondents’ including ‘research paradigms’ in their research methods teaching. Research paradigms represent the foundational knowledge of which research design, methodological and analytical decisions should be made (ref). Its limited coverage could mean that students are only developing a partial awareness of the research process and may be, if progressing to ‘top up’ their foundation degree, lack the contextual knowledge on which to defend their research. It may also be a consequence of the skills-knowledge debate, which, as discussed above, has seen FE colleges adopt a theory-lite approach to their teaching. Although representing foundation knowledge (or so-called ‘powerful knowledge’ (Young, 2008: 14) with respect to research, ‘research paradigms’ can be perceived as abstract and perhaps removed from the employer/work-focused agenda of FE colleges (Bathmaker, 2013). Supporting quotation(s) from IV data
Format of RM teachingTeaching Format Percentage (n)*Lectures dedicated to one programme
51.2 (n=83)
Lectures delivered to more than one programme
29.0 (n=47)
Small group teaching 40.7 (n=66)Workshops 38.3 (n=62)Seminars 28.4 (n=46)Online teaching 13.6 (n=22)1:1 tutorials 42.6 (n=69)* Could give more than one response
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Research methods are most commonly taught as programme specific lectures, through 1:1 tutorials, in small groups or as workshops, although as Table 7 indicates there may be some variation with respect to college size. This format of teaching supports the pedagogies respondents identified as commonly using e.g. independent study, practical exercises and project / problem-based learning (Table 5).
Pedagogy of RM teaching in CBHE
Pedagogic approach Percentage (n)*Problem-based learning 37.7 (61)Project-based learning 55.6 (90)Independent study 61.7 (100)Practical exercises 50.6 (80)
Approaches used to teaching RM to students
Real life scenarios % (n) Future careers / progression %/(n)Very difficult
1.7 6.7
Difficult 33.9 44.2Easy 47.1 35.0Very easy 12.4 7.5Don’t know 5.0 6.7
Ease of engaging student with RM teaching when framed with respect to:
*Could give more than one response
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This format of teaching supports the pedagogies respondents identified as commonly using e.g. independent study, practical exercises and project / problem-based learning (Table 5). Both the format of teaching and pedagogies employed are in line with those cited as promoting student engagement and building their confidence with this subject (e.g. Benson and Blackman, 2003). In contrast to universities, college-based research methods provision appears to be more programme-specific, integrated into wider teaching and learning activities, as indicated through the use of approaches such as practical exercises and problem-based learning. The importance of this was also considered in the focus group: This format of teaching supports the pedagogies respondents identified as commonly using e.g. independent study, practical exercises and project / problem-based learning (Table 5). Both the format of teaching and pedagogies employed are in line with those cited as promoting student engagement and building their confidence with this subject (e.g. Benson and Blackman, 2003). In contrast to universities, college-based research methods provision appears to be more programme-specific, integrated into wider teaching and learning activities, as indicated through the use of approaches such as practical exercises and problem-based learning. The importance of this was also considered in the focus group: ‘I know on our foundation degree programmes the research skills, which is a level four module, was originally taught lecture style to all of the students all together and supported in tutorials by staff members in their specialism area. But they came from a huge disparity of foundation degrees to come together to be delivered that, and it wasn’t necessarily for the benefit of the student, but it was definitely beneficial for the bottom line. Actually that has changed recently; we’ve gone to a more specialist model.’ FG Such integration follows the recommendations of the British Academy (2012) and MacInnes (2012) with respect to ensuring students understand both the context and application of research methods, and evidence is emerging of this taking place with respect to research methods been taught as part of themes central to the FD (e.g. work-based learning, employer engagement): ‘The Work Based Learning Unit involves submitting a proposal for one of the design aspects of a sustainable building. Once the proposal has been agreed with the client / employer and tutor the assignment will require research and analysis to be carried out for the design aspect involved and the submission of a report on the conclusions and recommendations proposed.’ QU As the next extract indicates, the primary consideration of the research project is vocational relevance: ‘Students are required to propose and complete a research project that is vocationally relevant’. QU This extract is indicative of the focus on vocational or work-based learning as a driver underpinning research methods teaching, which is evident throughout the data. When combined with data relating to aspects of research methods taught/not taught (Table 3), a pattern emerges of a model of teaching that is primarily packaged as developing skills for vocational tasks. This approach aligns with the requirements of FDs and ensures shared curriculum space for meeting FD benchmarks, as well as the pedagogic impetus for delivery. This observation needs to be framed alongside the non-traditional profile of FD students, and the potential implications this can have with respect to students needing to learn how to learn, again an issue raised within the focus groups: ‘I think, for the purpose for foundation degrees within the courses that I teach on or have taught on, the actual process of research they don’t get there yet. So we do, particularly in the early years foundation degree, one of the modules is about teaching research methods rather than actually doing it, because they’re not there yet.’ FG Indeed many of the pedagogies listed in Table 6 are widely used in colleges as they are seen as that supporting students’ academic development as a whole (Turner et al., 2009). Additionally, these data have already indicated that the breadth of research methods teaching may be somewhat limited, therefore whilst colleges initially appear to be employing pedagogies that support research methods teaching, this finding needs to be considered alongside the limited breadth of research methods teaching (Table 3) and the profile of the student body. [Place Table 5 here] [Place Table 6 here] [Place Table 7 here] Engaging students with research methods teaching Similar to university-based students, our data indicate engaging students with research methods teaching is challenging. Although the quantitative data demonstrate that 59.5% of respondents find it easy or very easy to engage students in research methods teaching when related to real life scenarios (Table 8), respondents found it more difficult to engage them (Table 9) when framed in terms of progression or future career development. This reinforces the challenges noted around student attitudes and engagement with research methods in university-based HE (e.g. McInnes, 2012; Williams et al., 2008). This is supported through the qualitative data, where examples were recorded of students questioning the relevance of research methods teaching, and also examples of lecturers trying to integrate research methods to real-life scenarios to promote perceived relevance: ‘There’s so many transferable skills there and that’s how I sell it. So I get a […] why do I have to do research, because it’s [a] core module, so I sell the transferable skills now, researching, in the literature being sent. I just find it quite hard, I don’t know about you, hard to sell it as a module, “Why do we have to do this as a core module?”’ FG ‘Legal research is essential, so the inclusion of primary legal sources is essential for all law modules. In Year 1 an initial Skills Assessment assesses students' ability in finding and using primary legal sources, and in Year 2 students undertake an extended essay on a subject of their choice. The project proposal, literature review and final essay all illustrate the depth/extent of research skills.’ QU [Place Table 8 here] [Place Table 9 here] The issue of student engagement aligns with the challenges identified in university settings. For colleges, who focus on meeting vocational FD requirements, we argue that there is a strategy employed in using this as a focus of research methods teaching. However, despite the generally positive attitudes towards research methods based on real-life and professional contexts, (Tables 8 and 9) there seems to be a sizable minority who still find difficulty in using the vocational levers as a stimulus: ‘The idea is for them to be enthusiastic about the topic, to want to, to be, I can’t motivate them if I give them a question and they hate me for the year, (…). They’ve got, and they don’t like it, to actually go, “What do I want to research?” Well, this is almost catch 22, isn’t it?’ FG It would seem that the problems of student engagement cannot be remedied through vocational alignment of research projects despite assumptions that this is the primary motivator for college-based HE students. College HE attracts a range of learners, including those who prefer to study at the local institution. This also means that students are increasingly engaged in a range of subjects other than those with a direct vocational application (Gray and Stone 2014). Consequently there needs to be consideration of discipline focussed research that does not necessarily have a clear vocational application. The advantage, as discussed here, for much college-based research methods teaching is that small group / programme specific activities provides staff with the opportunity to cater for individual students. The challenge is in equipping staff with the appropriate professional updating opportunities to facilitate this for their learners.
Student preferred methods of learning about RM
Method of RM teaching Percentage response (n=98*)
Lectures 51.0Practical exercises 46.91:1 tutorials 33.7Workshops 32.7Independent study tasks 31.6Problem-based Learning 25.5Project-based Learning 23.5Seminars 22.4On-line Learning 15.3
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Respondents recognized the value of research methods skills in their programme (91.6%, n=58, strongly agreeing/agreeing) and over three-quarters (77.8%, n=63) strongly agreeing/agreeing to the statement I enjoying applying research methods to real world problems. While these findings would suggest a preference for problem based or experience based learning when asked about their preferred teaching and learning approaches the picture was mixed, see table x. below. Creating a simple numerical index of preferred teaching and learning methods reveals that nearly a quarter of students expressed no preferred method (26.5%). From earlier analysis we have identified that quantitative methods are perceived as more difficult than qualitative methods. Exploring levels of difficulty by preferred teaching methods may provide useful insights into how teachers can facilitate learning and overcome perceptions that may be a barrier to active learning. Adopting a range of teaching and learning methods may improve engagement, confidence and academic performance. Table x, shows the mean qualitative and quantitative perceived difficulty score for preferred teaching and learning techniques, with the top three highest mean scores highlighted. For both quantitative and qualitative methods practical exercise, workshops and problem based approaches are highest scoring, perhaps not unsurprisingly as these approaches facilitate a more in-depth engagement with the complexity of research, going beyond the theoretical, requiring students to gain critical insights and personal experience. Lectures is a preferred learning score that also scores more highly with quantitative methods perceived difficulty and may reflect traditional approaches to the teaching of statistics in classrooms as a generic cross-disciplinary course (McInness or Williams reference here). The exact nature of the learning task, how it relates to curriculum objectives, the use of formative feedback and student reflection on their learning are significant factors that fall outside the scope of the survey data.
Implications• Student attitudes towards / experiences of RM is
likely to have implications for their willingness to engage / learning– Implication with respect to the ‘breadth’ of RM topics
delivered, varied experience profiles of students• Though lectures commonly used, practical
exercises, PBL / PrBL & workshops feature, creating the potential for active engagement with RM
• Students receptive to RM contextualised to ‘real-life scenarios’
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Here we have provided an overview of our provisional analysis of data relating to students experience, attitudes and confidence in RM in CBHE. This is an area that within the UK at least, is of growing significant, with the expansion in level six provision, and also has resonance to the growing expectations placed on HE providers by employers. The outcomes of this work will have relevance beyond to the UK other contexts (e.g. USA, Australia) where community college models of HE are firmly established. Within this study we also began to consider the pedagogy of RM teaching which is itself integral but often overlooked aspect of RM teaching Student attitudes towards / experiences of to RM is likely to have implications for their willingness to engage / learning From the JVET paper Parallels are emerging between college and university provision in relation to the resourcing and support of RM teaching; however the focus of these issues is determined by the structural and cultural foundations of different institutions. Within colleges the resourcing implications are those relating to fundamental requirements such as software and training, as well as a commitment to higher academic qualifications as a basis for staff engagement with research. There are related issues on the place of research as an expected activity of staff and whether it is considered to be of value in developing the capacity of staff in research methods teaching. Small group teaching and a range of integrated pedagogies have often been cited as a distinct feature of college-based HE and this aspect of resourcing is evident within the data. Larger colleges show a greater tendency toward stand-alone delivery, as opposed to integration of research methods across provision. An integrated approach would seem to be more common where a smaller body of HE provision exists. One assumption is that we are observing economies of scale, where smaller providers can rationalise programme-specific (and more integrated) forms of research methods teaching, with small cohorts not supporting the amalgamation of research methods teaching. This is an area which would benefit from further investigation. Another issue emerging from this research relates to the constrained curriculum space for research methods teaching. As a two year degree with a vocational benchmark requirement we became aware of the pressures faced in curriculum development. This is presented alongside the requirements necessitated for the large numbers of students who use the FD as an articulation route to a level six honours degree. These multiple requirements in terms of skills and knowledge means that research methods are pragmatically translated as a vocationally based project within many programmes. The implications of this are demonstrated in some of the empirical findings on lower levels of theoretical and conceptual engagement with research. Although representing foundation knowledge (or so-called ‘powerful knowledge’(Young 2008, 14) with respect to research, ‘research paradigms’ can be perceived as abstract and perhaps removed from the employer/work-focused agenda of FE colleges (Bathmaker 2013). This may have implications for students progressing to level six programmes where there is less of a vocational fit with the FD. Once again, this is a headline finding that would benefit from further investigation. One of the assumptions that can be increasingly challenged is the role of college HE as exclusively catering for a brand of vocational HE. These assumptions can also viewed alongside the demographic profile of college HE students, which remains grounded in notions of widening participation. The accessibility of college HE provision means that it is not only a location for vocationally orientated qualifications, but an institution that offers a route into HE, or simply a more local and flexible version of HE. Discussions of academic drift (Neave 1979; Garrod and Macfarlane 2009) or the purpose of the college aside (Wheelahan 2009), the implications of this development and growth of college HE are that aspects of curriculum such as research methods should be addressed for the sake of students, serving a greater constituency than is implied by the vocational or FD brand.
Future work
• Extended through HEFCE funded project to examine the potential for students development in RM to be evaluated as a proxy for ‘learning gain’– Comparative work investigating RM
teaching across disciplines / context
References• Gray, C., Turner, R., Sutton, C., Petersen, C., Stevens, S., Swain, J., Esmond,
B., Schofield, C. & Thackeray, D. (2015). Research methods teaching in vocational environments: developing critical engagement with knowledge? Journal of Educational and Vocational Training, 67 (3), 274-293
• MacInnes, J. 2012. Quantitative Methods teaching in UK Higher Education: The state of the field and how it might be improved. HEA Social Sciences teaching and learning summit: Teaching research methods. Radcliffe House, University of Warwick.
• Parry, G. 2009. Higher Education, Further Education and the English Experiment Higher Education Quarterly 63 (4):322–342.
• QAA 2010. Foundation Degree qualification benchmark. Gloucester : QAA.• Turner, R., McKenzie, L., and Stone. M. 2009. ‘Square peg - round hole’: the
emerging professional identities of HE in FE lecturers working in a partner college network in south-west England. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 14 (4):355-368.
• Williams, M., Payne, G., Hodgkinson, L. and Poade. D. 2008. Does British Sociology Count?: Sociology Students' Attitudes toward Quantitative Methods. Sociology 42 (5):1003-1021.