Distance faculty through peer led discussions and anonymization of data collection

As the principal investigator, I was present for the reflective discussion and conducted interviews with each of the five Cycle I participants. Specifically, I adhered to a protocol established by Westberg and Jason (2001). Notwithstanding seemingly favorable outcomes from this cycle, certain complications within the discussion itself, some overt and some covert, arose. The overt ones, such as the facilitation efforts required to elicit effective questioning and keep the discussion focused, have already been touched upon. It is the more covert ones that merit further analysis.

The discussion proved to be both a candid and convivial affair, characterized by rich and boisterous dialogue. Explanations for such candor are varied, but a few

immediately stand out. First, the nature of the group dynamics was based upon mutual acquaintance. Participants had known one another for more than a year, being from the same cohort. Though they may not have all been close friends, their interactions

revealed mutual amity. It has been suggested that peer discussions tend to be non- threatening and promote honest dialogue (Wessa & de Rycker, 2010; Wood & Kurzel, 2008), though others have noted that they may contribute to feelings of vulnerability and anxiety (Carter, 2013; Williams & Walker, 2003). It is arguable, therefore, that inherent group characteristics may have influenced the level of discourse. By the same token, it would be unwise to disregard any part that the facilitator might play. This concept deserves further exploration.

My role as the facilitator extends further back from when I first briefed the participants about reflective practice. It has grown out of my position as department chair and has developed as I built relationships with the students. Over the years I have made concerted efforts to create a judgment-free and hospitable academic environment. I regularly conduct open forums with students, soliciting feedback for program

improvement. I have also made a point of assuming a consistent presence in the

department, meeting with students individually to check on their academic progress and to discuss any concerns. It is widely held that out-of-classroom communications yield positive outcomes, including that of engendering trust (Dobransky & Frymier, 2004; Jaasma & Koper, 1999; Nadler & Nadler, 2001). I believe these strategies have worked to that end, and I am convinced that they contributed to a candid and productive group discussion.

But what if another faculty member had been the facilitator? And what if that faculty member had not developed the same trusting relationship that I had with these students? It is possible that the students would have been less forthcoming in their narratives and dialogue; particularly if any of the shared narratives involved an incident with that professor. Consequently, the positive outcomes realized from this discussion may, in large part, have been a product of the unique nature and dynamics of the particular group, facilitator included.

To effect continued trust and candor in future discussions, an alternate framework was needed; one that removes faculty from the picture. One popular approach is to train students to lead the discussions themselves. Stevenson (2005) recommends

discussions that are facilitated or guided by peers, as opposed to relying on a faculty supervisor. She calls these “egalitarian consultation meetings” (Stevenson, 2005, p. 250), which, as the name implies, promote an equal voice amongst the participants. There are several advantages to this approach. Balasooriya, et al. (2013) assert that peer-led discussions enhance learning and team-building. Boud (2001) note that reflecting in the presence of a peer is less intimidating than it is in front of a faculty

member. Furthermore, Hudson and Hunter (2014) contend that it is easier to receive advice and mentoring from a peer than it is from a faculty member. And perhaps most relevant to the issues of openness and candor, Ladyshewsky, and Gardner (2008) suggest that the presence of faculty moderators may negatively influence student engagement in discussions. Empowering student leaders may, consequently, temper perceptions of oppression by authoritative figures. Out of these concerns,

implementation of peer-led discussions was incorporated into Cycle II, the protocol of which is outlined in Section 7.3.4.

Additionally, post-discussion interviews were not anonymous, potentially contributing to student reticence or dissimulation, and potentially delegitimizing any conclusions. Whether this happened during Cycle I interviews remains unclear. The interviews were intended for data collection purposes only, seeking to glean information from

participants about their perceptions of PFR. However, it must be acknowledged that the knowledge-producing nature of the interviews, as described by Holstein and Gubrium (2004), may have induced participants toward reflection, and may have unintentionally become a component of the intervention itself. In and of itself, inducing students toward more reflection was not necessarily a bad thing; however, it potentially influenced findings and interpretations.

The only suitable way around this complication was to have students anonymously submit written questionnaires. Items on the questionnaire, much akin to the interviewer questions, would guide students toward making realizations about their own

experiences and learning from PFR. Though the shared narratives flourishing from interviews that Holstein and Gubrium (2004) so wholly embrace would be lost, resorting to written questionnaires became a necessary concession to safeguard the purity of responses. Thus, for Cycle II data collection, students anonymously submitted a written reflective questionnaire in place of interviews. The written questionnaire is presented in detail in Section 7.5 and can be found in Appendix L.

6.6.3 Grading

The reflective discussion was a voluntary, ungraded activity. However, with the planned inclusion of PFR into the curriculum, assessment became a relevant topic. The literature supports the students’ views on the unpopularity of grading (Delany & Watkin, 2008; Hobbs, 2007; Smith & Trede, 2013a), though assessment should not be discarded altogether. I agree with Boud’s (1999) denunciation of process-based assessments, and I favor a departure from faculty-graded evaluation. Wherefore, I lean toward an

outcomes-based assessment model that transfers the agency of evaluation to the participant. Instead of grading, the assessment of reflection should occur at the

individual level, by the individual. Certainly, faculty should be interested in the students’ own assessments, but their interests should lie in determining which processes of reflection work best for the students themselves. Through these understandings, faculty can then better guide students through appropriate avenues of reflective practice.

For PFR implemented into the PTA program beginning with Cycle II, students completed a reflective essay (Appendix J) that encouraged them to analyze their experiences and learning with PFR. The essay was graded Credit/No Credit based upon thoroughness of completion and was not used to inform this research.