The research project

The initial research design was for an AR project incorporating six fortnightly meetings with mature-aged students from arts and humanities courses. In the initial plan, each 50-

104

minute meeting was to incorporate 25 minutes of chatting in focus group style, inviting discussion among participants on themes identified in the literature as common for mature-aged students. That time would enable students to reflect on their learning and provide an opportunity for collective scaffolding, social modelling, and a brief opportunity for purposeful social engagement. It would also yield valuable data to inform modifications to the study group. The second 25 minutes was to be spent on planned collaborative activities concerning writing. Participants were to be encouraged to bring any writing on which they were working to any meeting for collaborative discussion either during the chat time, or blended into the collaborative activities if they connected in some way. It was intended that there would be a second cycle the following year incorporating revisions to the intervention.

In fact, this initial design changed after the first meeting of Cycle One and then continually through that cycle (see Chapter 6). Study groups were held every week for ten weeks of a semester and discussion in chat times was on student-initiated topics. The focus of the group was broadened as data emerging early suggested that the most effective way to support students with their writing would be to design activities that might assist them to acquire an academic Discourse (see 4.1). To this end, the initially planned content and structure of all activities were modified.

5.2.1Determining parameters for participants

Selecting parameters for participants in the research was important because of the New Zealand context in which students 20 years and over may enter university under adult

admission. It was necessary to determine what “mature” indicated for this research, as the descriptors “mature students” or “adult students” are applied variously in different

contexts. Internationally, despite western world changes in student demographics and a preponderance of older students on some campuses, students between 18 and 22 years old are still designated traditional-aged (Krause et al., 2005). Both Merrill (2001) in the UK, and Cullity (2010) from Australia, cite 21 years old as a lower parameter for adult students. Krause et al. (2005), however, focus on the break in the educational process as they assign descriptors to student cohorts; they define those students re-entering

education aged between 20 and 24 as ‘younger’ non-traditional students. Certainly, the

literature indicated that the break was a significant factor in mature students’ learner

105

Two important observations influenced the lower age parameter for this research. First, Tones et al. (2009) identify possible significant differences in life-commitments between students above 25 years old and younger non-traditional students: the greater likelihood of committed partners, dependent children or elders, perhaps more community involvements, employment, and independence from parents. Secondly, Merrill (2001) notes that students above 25 years may not choose to identify socially with traditional-aged students, whereas those aged closer to 21 well may. Because of the acknowledged importance of similar peers (Bandura, 2012; Habel, 2009) and social

engagement (Kantanis, 2002), and taking note of Merrill’s observation about non- identification with younger students, I decided on 25 years old as the younger boundary. There was no upper age limit.

Other planned parameters for participants were that they were in their first year at university, or their first semester on campus, and studying courses with a significant writing component, primarily arts and humanities. Parameters were flexible, however. The university at which this study took place has a large cohort of distance students; some students who wanted to join the research had completed one or two courses by distance before their arrival on campus. They were welcomed, as was Ann, in Cycle One, who already had a degree gained more than 20 years previously but in another country and another language. Mature-aged students who had already spent three or four years on campus, however, who would have liked to have joined the research, were encouraged to network with participants but not to join the group because of its focus on beginning students.

5.2.2Recruitment

Before each cycle, tear-off notices were placed in strategic places around the campus – public noticeboards outside the main lecture rooms used for the large arts and humanities introductory courses and departmental noticeboards (with permission from those departments). The research was introduced at the orientation meeting for mature students and in the introductory lecture for the compulsory writing course for BA students. In Cycle One, in an attempt to increase numbers of participants, mature students in business and science courses were also invited by email or by lecturers. Some Cycle One participants were enrolled in social work courses, but as the academic writing course was not compulsory for those students, in Cycle Two I also introduced the research at the introductory meeting for social work. The key recruitment strategy in

106

Cycles Three and Four was emailing invitations to potential participants in arts, humanities, and social work identified through the university enrolling system. Distance students studying arts or humanities courses and living within reasonable travelling time of the campus were also invited by targeted emails.

Notices and invitations advertised the research as involving entry and exit interviews, participation in six collaborative workshops, and allowing scrutiny of all written texts through the semester with approval from relevant faculty. Invitations suggested a total

of eight hours of students’ time (Appendix 3). These were repeated in all cycles, although in practice, in all cycles participants elected to meet weekly for the whole semester. In Cycle Ones and Two, the greatest response came from introducing the research in the first lecture for the academic writing course. In Cycle Four, the most effective strategy was inviting students by email.

Snowballing

Participants were encouraged to invite fellow mature-aged students they met in lectures or around the campus to join the research. This chain-referral method of recruiting, termed snowballing because of its similarity to a snowball gaining mass as it rolls down a hill (Berg, 2009; Cohen et al., 2011), built on the developing relationships engendered

in the study groups (see ‘rapport’ below). It allowed for students beyond the reach of

the main recruitment strategies, those not enrolled in the academic writing paper or who had not attended orientation week activities, or, in Cycles Three and Four, had not been invited by targeted emails, to participate in the study groups in their first semesters. Over the three years of the research, several students visited the study group through a first level of snowballing and four committed to joining the group.

5.2.3Participants

Over the three years of the research, 33 students, 15 men and 18 women, aged between 25 and 63 years, attended study groups for six weeks or more in their first semesters. Twenty-nine of those participated for complete semesters. More than 40 students attended a single meeting but were unable to join the research because of timetable or travel clashes, or because their time was too limited. Demographics within each cycle differed, but over the period of the research comprised almost equal numbers (7-8) in the 25-29, 30-34, and 40-44 years age ranges. The median age of all participants was 36.

107

Brief details of participants’ ages and study group attendance are given with the discussion of each cycle. Overall, seven students identified as Māori; two were immigrants, one of them, although English was not her home language, was a fluent speaker of English but a very apprehensive writer. The remainder were New Zealand Europeans. (Appendix 7 provides brief details of all participants’ ages, ethnicities, and backgrounds).

As a bridge between these logistical factors and the data gathering and ethical issues, the following section of this chapter discusses the matter of evaluation of the study group. Clearly, it would be important to evaluate the study group as an intervention, but determining how to evaluate it was a key factor influencing the choice of AR, because the evaluation involves what counts as knowledge and thus the sorts of data gathered.