Collecting data from students

Student feedback and reflection helped to: 1) identify students’ existing IL approaches and ways they could be further supported with their IL development, and 2) determine students’ views on the new approaches to assessment and pedagogy. Table 10 outlines the number of students participating in each cycle. Participation in journals and focus groups in Semester Two, 2010 was limited due to few volunteers, and some students who expressed an interest in the focus groups were unable to participate as these data collection points were scheduled during study break at the end of each semester and some students had returned home.

Table 10: Cycle One and Cycle Two Student Participation Data STUDENT PARTICIPATION CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 S2 2010 Course Class total Not partici- pating Assignment review Journal Focus Group Survey S2 2011 Course Class total Not partici- pating Assignment review Journal Focus Group Survey N % N % N % N o % N % N % N % N % 1-2 44 0 44 100 1 2 4 9 22 50 1-2 31 0 31 100 6 19 10 32 19 61 2-2 25 0 25 100 1 4 5 2 20 80 2-2 26 0 26 100 4 15 5 19 25 96 S1 2011 1-1 37 0 37 100 8 22 9 24 X X S1 2012 1-1 37 5 32 86 4 11 6 16 25 68 3-1 22 0 22 100 2 9 5 28 X X 3-1 27 0 27 100 4 15 5 19 25 93 4-1 19 1 18 95 10 53 7* 37 X X 4-1 21 0 21 100 7 33 9* 43 X X 4-D 22 3 18 82 10 45 7* 32 X X 4-D 24 0 24 100 7 29 9* 36 X X

*Focus Groups for Course 4-1 and 4-D were combined as the participating students were taking both courses

The number of students who declined to be involved in the research at all was minimal (see the ‘not participating’ column in Table 10). Most students agreed to assignment review. As mentioned previously (see 4.7), those who indicated they would be interested in the focus groups and/or the reflective journals were e-mailed with information detailing what participation in these data collection methods would involve. They then replied as to whether they wished to participate or not. Participation in the journals and focus groups increased as the research progressed and students became more familiar with my involvement in their courses. Some students participated in journals and focus groups in more than one semester, which allowed for a continuing conversation around whether the interventions were progressively supporting their learning throughout the BEP programme.

4.8.4.1 Reflective email journals (SJN)

Students who voluntarily consented to participate in reflective journals were sent an e-mail every second week during the semester with guiding questions, and an opportunity to comment on their personal learning. The data from these journals provided an insight into the students’ learning processes and raised more questions for discussion and investigation as the research progressed. They also provided feedback for the instructors and me on the implemented changes, leading to further discussion and changes for the subsequent cycles. The participants remained anonymous and I was the only person reading the journals, but a summary of the comments (omitting information that may identify any student) were provided to instructors.

4.8.4.2 Focus group interviews (SFG)

Focus groups are used to gain a shared understanding from multiple participants while eliciting views from specific people (Creswell, 2005; Lodico et al., 2010). They allow the views of several individuals to contribute to deeper, shared understanding of the research topic, and allow interaction between those participating in the interview, which means participants have the opportunity to listen to the responses of the others (Patton, 2002). There does not have to be any kind of consensus, but all involved need opportunities to have their voices heard (Mills, 2007). Group members should be able to

respond to ideas and discussions in what should be a comfortable and enjoyable session (Patton, 2002). This research gathered feedback from student focus groups in relation to the issues of IL development and related challenges. A semi-structured interview schedule (McKernan, 1996; Mills, 2007) was used to ensure participants in different focus groups were able to respond to the same content questions (Appendix 4b), but students were also able to raise issues I may not have considered, ask questions, and develop shared understandings as the focus groups progressed. The focus groups were 60-75 minutes duration, allowing enough time to collect an adequate amount of information without the participants losing attention or motivation (McClure, 2002). From an ethical standpoint, confidentiality cannot be assured in focus groups (Patton, 2002). The need to respect the views and privacy of participants was explained in the focus group information sheet (Appendix 3c) and verbally before the focus group discussion began, to ensure that all participants recognised the importance of maintaining confidentiality.

In the first focus groups, students were reluctant to speak up, which led to excessive researcher control of the group. For the next cycle, questions were handed to the students so they could control the discussion, and I only interrupted to ask for more detail or clarification, or to move the discussion on to the next key point. As mentioned earlier, the cohort structure of the programme meant that I had repeated opportunities to speak with the same students as they progressed through their degree; this allowed me to gain a longitudinal view of the changes and determine whether any transfer of competencies and learning was taking place.

4.8.4.3 Anonymous surveys (SSV)

Anonymous survey questionnaires were conducted in Courses 1-2 and 2-2 at the end of Semester 2, 2010 because of the small number of students in the journal writing and focus groups. The surveys provided an opportunity to get responses and feedback from most of the students in the course. The surveys were administered during class time, so only those attending on the day completed them. As Cycle One continued in Semester 1, 2011, student participation rates for journals and focus groups had increased, so surveys were

not administered. Surveys were repeated in Courses 1-2 and 2-2 in Semester 2, 2011 to maintain consistency of data within each course. However, due to the richness of the data that the previous surveys had produced, anonymous surveys were also conducted in selected courses at the end of Semester 1, 2012 as a final phase of data collection. The fourth-year classes did not complete surveys because the structure of the courses and the level of participation in both journal and focus groups was adequate for student data collection in these courses.

The surveys used a Likert scale to indicate the usefulness of the interventions, and some YES/NO answers with a ‘why?’ prompt to elicit reasons for the response given to gain both quantitative and descriptive data. The survey also asked for ‘any other comments’ to allow the students to openly respond or make comment on anything else they considered relevant (Mills, 2007). The surveys only provided a limited picture of the situation, but they helped identify themes that could be developed and extended through discussion in the focus groups.