Study of student perspectives

As well as working with a range of tutors, I looked to gather student perspectives. This was intended to fill out the picture of the way international study visits were run in the School of Education in order to assess the potential effectiveness of the existing

pattern, rather than to assess or measure the effect of such international experiences upon students’ development of intercultural capabilities. For the trips to The Gambia that were the main focus of this part of the study a range of methods was used: analysis of letters of application; questionnaires with closed and two open questions distributed before the visit (Appendix 2.6); pre-visit and post-visit focus groups (Appendices 1.2, 2.8 & 2.9), with some photo elicitation (Appendix 3.2) and use of drawing (Appendix 3.3); reflective discussions during the visits; and reflective writing frames on return (Appendix 2.10). Aspects of other trips, to Hungary, the Czech Republic and Redbridge, were used to cast further light upon the main findings, and with their participants I used different combinations of as many of the methods listed above as was practicable, given issues of timing, student availability and willingness to participate.

4.3.3.1: Analysis of letters of application

In order to find out whether aspects of the development of intercultural capabilities were seen by student participants as part of their motivation for engaging upon study visits, I gained their permission and that of their trip leaders to analyse their letters of application, in which they had been asked to indicate their reasons for applying. Those

108

for The Gambia were compared and contrasted with those for the trips to the Czech Republic and Redbridge.

4.3.3.2 Questionnaires

As suggested by Punch (2009), I looked to gather relevant demographic and

biographical data about participants through a questionnaire for self-completion prior to the students’ departure on their study visit (Appendix 2.6). I largely used closed questions for this in order to generate data that would be easy to analyse and to compare. I wanted to add exploratory, open-ended questions to allow participants to give a wider range of information but I included only two, as I was concerned that too long a questionnaire might deter students from completing it. I followed the detailed advice of Bryman (2012) and Cohen et al. (2011) on devising the questions. Cohen et al. (2011) warn that the response rate for questionnaires can be low, affecting the validity of the conclusions that can be drawn, but I received 44 completed

questionnaires from the 69 issued, which is an acceptable rate of return to produce valid data (Appendix 2.7).

The questionnaires were emailed to the participants, along with the letter inviting participation and the ethics protocol (Appendix 1.2), but in order to preserve anonymity the completed questionnaires were returned to me via a colleague. An advantage of an anonymous questionnaire is that the respondent can be more open and honest (Lankshear and Knobel 2004); moreover, completing a questionnaire can be less time-consuming than an interview, depending upon its design, and the satisfactory return rate suggest that the design was acceptable to the participants.

109 4.3.3.3: Focus Groups

The major approach used in investigating student perceptions was a series of group meetings with student volunteers from each of the study visits. Three patterns of groups were planned:

a) pre-trip (for students on the same study visit) b) post-trip (for students on the same study visit) c) post-trip (for students from different study visits)

The pre-trip groups aimed to explore in more depth themes and issues which had arisen from the documentary analysis, the student questionnaires and the interviews with the International Coordinator and with leading tutors, as recommended by Drew et al. (2006). The post-trip groups considered in particular matters arising from trip experiences and from the various types of reflections, both during the study visits themselves and subsequent reflective processes such as the writing frames.

I planned for the group meetings to involve four students from each of the study visits under consideration; given likely numbers participating, this would have provided a reasonably representative sample. In the event, it was a challenge to get students to participate, perhaps because of the voluntary nature of the visits or the students’ timetables and assessment deadlines. A total of 21 students took part in the various focus groups (see Appendix 4 for Research Timetable). I conducted one pre-trip group for the students going to the Gambia (3 students) and one for Redbridge (2 students). I conducted three post-trip groups for students on return from the Gambia (4+2+3 students), one for students after their placement in the Czech Republic (4 students) and one for students on return from Hungary (3 students). From these groups I then sought further volunteers to participate in a cross-trip group involving participants

110

from each of the trips, so that differences and similarities between the four visits could be explored. However, due to the timing of the visits, this last group was not possible as the students were departing for their summer break.

Each group meeting lasted between 30 and 50 minutes and was held at a location on campus convenient for all participants. I provided information on the study (Appendix 1.2) and I requested permission from them to audio-record the interactions (Appendix 1.2), offering to ask a colleague to take field notes if they were uncomfortable with this, but the eventuality did not arise. In each meeting I offered an initial focus chosen from ideas derived from the previous data-generation methods (Appendices 2.8 & 2.9), but I was then flexible in selecting follow-up approaches.

The nature of the meetings as a research method must be clarified, since such small group meetings can be of several different types. They can be ‘group interviews’, where the investigator puts a range of planned questions to the participants. A limitation, as Clough and Nutbrown (2007) point out, is that this may be over-

dominated by the investigator’s research preoccupations and schedule and so it may not allow all the individuals to express their ideas. The meetings may also be what Clough and Nutbrown (2007) term ‘focussed conversations’, where the investigator invites participants to share their ideas and experience on a particular topic or topics; this can be an effective method of incorporating a range of voices into a research project, and eliciting individual stories whilst linking them together to present a collective experience. Or they may be ‘focus groups’, which allow greater flexibility for the participants to engage with each other in retrospective inspection (Bloor et al.

111

2001), to explore taken-for-granted assumptions (Lloyd-Evans 2006) and to reflect upon why they acted, or reacted, in particular situations on the trip.

I used focus groups since my purpose was not to obtain answers to very specific questions of my own but to gain a clearer picture of the student participants’ perspectives. I welcomed the greater flexibility offered, both for the participants to help shape the investigation and for them to interact with each other. Once again, as a tutor taking on the role of researcher I had to be very mindful not to interject and dominate the discussion, whilst at the same time keeping to the agreed focus. I was aware that this would be complicated by the hierarchical element inherent in the tutor/student relationship, with the student usually in a subordinate position. Consequently, I had to work hard to minimise the status differences and to build a more equal relationship in order for the groups to generate the rich data required, trusting in my extensive experience of working interactively with groups of students to make sure that I involved all the participants, including those who were less confident and forthcoming, and that I facilitated a reflexive and participatory approach, as advocated by Desai and Potter (2006).

I also had to treat the ideas and opinions expressed with a certain caution. In a focus group cognitions and experiences are constructed as the participants talk with each other; the talk is designed for that audience which consists of the others in the group and so is only fully relevant in that context (Wilkinson 1999). Asked a similar question in a different context, the answers may be different. So I had to bear in mind that the data were a reflection of the views of the group in that given space and time (Lloyd-

112

Evans 2006) and, as Clough and Nutbrown (2007) warn, not necessarily representative or generalisable.

I used several elicitation techniques to support the process (Appendices 3.2 & 3.3). The subtle and complex indicators of potential changes in intercultural capabilities are not easily expressed or captured simply through spoken and written language. I therefore looked to use as well visual methods. Having the opportunity to engage in a creative activity and make things is empowering for research participants as it gives the message that what they have to communicate is interesting and that it can be interpreted and represented in a variety of ways (Gauntlett and Holzwarth 2006). It also moves away from using language as the single form of expression, giving

participants time to decide on what and how to represent ideas, to reconsider the representation and to change it, potentially leading to a wider range of insights.

The two main visual methods used were drawing and photo-elicitation (Appendices 3.2 & 3.3). In the pre-trip focus groups I gave participants the task of constructing a visual representation of their motivations/aspirations/ expectations/anxieties around the international study visits, possibly through a self-portrait with comments. In the post- trip focus groups I asked them to co-construct a visual representation of their ‘journey’ through the trip, incorporating shared experiences. Both are techniques I have used before (Appendix 6.2), finding that engagement in the drawing activity leads to rich conversations about experiences, shared memories and emotional responses within each group, and draws out embodied knowledge in a way that writing, or responding verbally to direct questions, may not (Leitch, 2008).

113

In the Gambia and Czech post-trip focus groups, I also tried photo elicitation. The majority of students take a lot of photos whilst on international study visits, and share many of them immediately on Facebook, using the advances in digital and wireless technology, even in Majority World countries such as The Gambia. I asked each participant to bring to the focus group two or three images that represented for them elements of cultural diversity (see Appendix 3.4). I had discovered in a previous research project that I needed to be very specific in my request for images, as some of the students did not bring any while some brought all they had taken, flicking through them very fast on their laptop with very little comment or discussion. I set clear criteria for the range and scope of photographs to be brought and shared and the students were encouraged to explain and justify their choices. I also asked them to be prepared to describe an image they would like to have captured but did not do so, perhaps for ethical reasons.

Much can be learned about people as social and cultural beings by systematically reflecting on how a photo is taken, interpreted and shared, since it is a “symbolic form embedded in a communication process” (Butler-Kisber 2010:215). In selecting a subject and taking a photo one gives meaning to an experience, and so the photo represents significant aspects of one’s knowledge, identity and emotions. Such a socially constructed artefact can therefore legitimately be used as a vehicle for elicitation, reflection and representation.

The study revealed both advantages and disadvantages of such visual methods. A considerable advantage is identified by Collier, who suggests “The richest returns from

114

photo elicitation often have little connection to the details of the images, which may only serve to release vivid memories, feelings, insights, thoughts and memories [sic]” (Collier 2001, cited in Butler-Kisber 2010:125). Given that I was seeking to uncover how experiences on the trips might lead to subtle shifts in beliefs, attitudes and behaviours, such released material potentially offered rich and productive data that could be analysed for themes, patterns and distinctive elements. Another advantage was that it placed the focus on the photos or drawings rather than directly upon the students themselves. They did not have to maintain eye contact with each other, which

generated a more relaxed atmosphere and therefore more discussion. It also helped to offset any possible feelings that the focus group was some kind of test.

At a different level, using such methods enables participants to be active in the research process rather than just respondents (Prosser and Burke 2008) because they have considerable control over the process and what to contribute or omit (Butler- Kisber 2010). This helped to ensure that their voices, rather than my preoccupations, were dominant.

But there were difficulties. In using drawings I found at times that talking took over, rather than it being an integrated process, and so the visual material produced was limited. Possibly those who lacked confidence or skill at drawing were reluctant to engage, limiting their contribution. Similarly, those who did not see themselves as good photographers may have felt inhibited. The focus groups also supported

Lankshear and Knobel ‘s (2004) suggestion that using elicitation devices often requires more response time than conventional interview questions, and as a result, less

115

material is generated, or the discussions lack depth. As a tutor who had shared some of the experiences I had to be careful in my analysis that I did not over-impose my own interpretations of the images. Two factors reduced this danger. Firstly, the discussions of the images were audio-recorded. I took particular care to ask participants to share their thoughts on what they were representing and encouraged them to add

comments and/or annotations – information that I could use later to support my interpretations. Secondly, I brought to the task of drawing and taking photos my own experience of international study visits, which made my interpretations more likely to be well-informed and perceptive, not least because I had sometimes been part of the learning context in which the representations were created (Gauntlett and Holzwarth 2006). However, I had to be careful always to engage in what Clough and Nutbrown (2007) term as ‘radical listening’, paying careful attention to all the voices and their messages in order to generate data about contexts, past events, attitudes, motivations and beliefs.

4.3.3.4 Reflective discussions during the visit

As shared reflections had been identified as a valuable part of the process of learning on an international study visit, I provided audio recorders to the students going to The Gambia and invited them to capture some of their reflective discussions during the trip. I had used this method previously (Campbell-Barr and Huggins 2011) so I knew that potentially the response would be limited, and this proved to be the case. 3 groups of 3 students returned the audio recorders with recorded discussions. I also received a recording of a short discussion between a tutor and 4 students on the Hungary visit. All these provided flashes of insight into the nature of such group reflections, the key concerns raised and how they were explored (see Appendix 3.5).

116 4.3.3.5 Individual Writing Frames

Another method used was to invite students to complete a simple writing frame with sections introduced by carefully phrased questions (Appendix 2.10). The impetus for using this method was that in my previous experience of international study visits critical incidents (Bruster and Peterson 2012), especially ones that caused participants disquiet or discomfort, had often proved an effective stimulus to their reflecting upon and questioning existing ideas and beliefs, and so potentially coming to new

understandings. However, Clough and Nutbrown (2007) suggest that although the impact of such critical incidents can sometimes be captured in small group discussion, this method is limited. The individual’s whole story can easily get lost as the discussion snowballs, or goes off in other directions. The danger is that a group discussion

becomes an individual sharing in turn of particular incidents, describing what

happened and the context; before the participant is able to discuss the impact this has had upon his/her thinking another student may well have embarked upon sharing his/her experience. As Bruster and Peterson (2012) argue, focusing on a critical incident can enable students to move beyond being narrowly descriptive to a more reflective stance, but, as Black and Plowright (2010) add, this demands ‘space’ to facilitate a dialogue; the process has to make links to their beliefs, experiences and worldviews in order to be reflective and reflexive. What is essential is both

undisrupted time and space and a structure to support the construction of a coherent and complete narrative about the incident and its implications.

Writing frames potentially offer such a space and structure, taking into account Ryan’s (2012) recommendation that in order to demonstrate learning through praxis there has to be the identification of a clear incident. Arguably “narrative is the perfect

117

vehicle for inquiry because it illustrates the selectivity of experience, uses the narrative mode to represent the iterative and continuous aspects of experience, and emphasises the social and contextual aspects of understanding.” (Clandinin and Rosiek 2007:39- 42, cited in Butler-Kisber 2010:65). The frames could capture how the students made sense of and gave meaning to their experiences, which Drew et al. (2006) note is vital to our understanding of social action. I could then use an interpretive approach to analyse the meanings that they “attribute to these experiences and the perspectives through which they define their social realities” (Drew et al. 2006:79).

The writing frame was sent to all participants involved in The Gambia, Hungary and Redbridge study visits so that those who were not contributing to the focus groups were still able to put forward ideas that could be used as prompts for the focus groups themselves (Lankshear and Knobel 2004). The frame offered them a simple structure – empty columns with some prompts, questions and headings to respond to as they chose. I encouraged them to write as much as they wanted to. I received eighteen responses from the forty distributed.

There proved to be considerable advantages in using writing frames. They captured the thoughts and words of participants in a form that could be accessed by myself at a convenient time and revisited (Cresswell 2009). Also, because the data was already in a written form, it saved me considerable time in transcription. A disadvantage was that not all students were willing to complete the frames, perhaps because of the time it would have taken but also because it might have been upsetting for them to revisit painful experiences. Moreover, as their stories were highly personal, anonymity and

118

confidentiality might have been an issue. By contributing to the writing frames the participants were opening up their stories to me and, given the small number of participants in each trip, the write-up may have made it clear to others whose story was being discussed.

Despite the obvious advantages of the method, I needed to be critical about what was produced. The students were aware that by writing and submitting the frame their personal/private thoughts and ideas became public and this inevitably shaped what they chose to write; moreover, as these frames were completed at my request there was a danger that the students wrote only those things that they thought I was looking for, though being able to complete these individually and in private may well have limited such pressures.

I also made requests to the student participants that they share with me extracts from journals or any other reflective pieces that they had written, perhaps for their

Professional Development Portfolios as evidence of their learning from the visits, but I