This paper presents and discusses a student-focussed, small group learning and teaching, and school-wide initiative designed for first year undergraduate students in support of their transition into higher education. The details of the underlying pedagogic strategy, as well as the organisation (small group teaching environment), the content of applied learning and teaching approaches (including assignment and assessment), and the outcomes of the initiative evaluation (including required human resources) based on data collected from five consecutive academic years are presented. This paper aims to serve as an example of a pedagogic approach that facilitates student transition into Higher Education aimed at practitioners, especially those involved in delivery and/or those who are engaged or responsible for undergraduate curricula development. The findings are discussed in terms of implications for curricular changes to support students’ engagement at this early stage of their university career.
First-year undergraduate students face challenging times during their first few months at university owing to the rapid and radical lifestyle changes as well as new academic demands. Many students experience problems adapting to their new environment, which, in turn and in agreement with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [
At Ulster (formally University of Ulster and currently Ulster University) these initiatives led to the development of skills tutorials to support first year undergraduate students during their transition into university [
In our school, the structure and the content of the aforementioned skills tutorials have, since been revised to include bioscience related material. The incorporation of subject specific content and academic skills (e.g. scientific report writing, academic poster preparation and presentation and exercises in referencing scientific literature) into the curricula of the degree programmes in the format of regular tutorial sessions has allowed for both early support of students’ future careers, the early development of transferable, academic skills and the development of the cohorts i.e. programme-specific identities [
Incorporation of the skills tutorials into the curricula of the degree programmes has also facilitated the allocation of both physical and human resources in support of tutorial delivery. This consequently allowed for a choice of teaching and assessment strategies that provided not only academic benefits to learners but has also allowed direct support of students’ social needs at the time of the transition to the university.
This paper presents the details of the pedagogic strategy, as well as the organisation, the content, including assignments and assessment methods that have been developed and applied into the first semester of the first year of a number of undergraduate courses in our School. The paper is structured as follows:
2. Learning and Teaching Strategy, including the following aspects
2.1. Background to the First Year Curricula and the Selection of a Pedagogic Strategy to Support Students’ Transition
2.2. SSP Organisation of Formal Learning Groups vs. Teaching Plan (including the topics of weekly activities)
2.3. Organisation of the Formal Learning Groups vs. Group Assignment
2.4. Evaluation of the SSP
3. Retrospective Overview of the SSP
3.1. Students and Staff Involved in the SSP
3.2. Students’ Participation in the Formal Learning Groups
3.3. The Outcomes of SSP Evaluations by Students
4. Discussion (of the pedagogic approach used and the outcomes of SSP evaluation)
5. Conclusion
This paper aims to serve as an example of a pedagogic approach that facilitates student transition into university. It is aimed at practitioners, especially those involved in the delivery of first year curricula but also those who are engaged or responsible for undergraduate curricula development.
Every year, a high number of first year undergraduate students from different educational backgrounds enrol on a number of undergraduate programmes in the School of Biomedical Sciences at Ulster. The entry requirements to these programmes range from 240 UCAS tariff scores (a points system used by the Universities and Colleges Admission Services in UK to report educational achievements for entry into higher education) and a minimum of one science subject (predominantly Home Economics) to 340 UCAS tariff scores with a minimum of two science subjects (including Biology and/or Chemistry or Physics). The curricula of the individual programmes are designed according to the programmes learning objectives, however in semester 1 of the first year the majority of first year students are required to study three common modules (units of delivery) in Introductory chemistry, Human physiology and Biostatistics. These are taught in large class settings of >150+ students. The skills tutorials were incorporated into the curricula of the first semester mandatory biostatistics modules of seven undergraduate courses including BSc Hons Biology, BSc Hons Biomedical Sciences (three distinctive programmes), BSc Hons Pharmacology, BSc Hons Human Nutrition, BSc Hons Food and Nutrition, BSc Hons Dietetics. The inclusion of the skills tutorial sessions into the undergraduate programmes curricula meant that the context of the sessions was translated, into the learning objectives (LOs) specific for each degree programme involved, which in turn was appropriately assessed (according to the standards of the higher education provider and national quality standards; for info see UK Quality Code for Higher Education). Inherently, the learning objectives have been focused on the transferable skills (see
The formulation of the relevant LOs, was in line with the main goal of the tu-
Skills taught, practiced and assessed and thus associated with appropriate learning outcomes* |
---|
Distinguishing between ideas, opinions and judgment in own writing |
Expressing key themes in a predictable and standard written format |
Presenting correctly formatted scientific communications |
Using the Internet to supplement lecture and laboratory material |
Writing effectively and with precision |
Working with and meeting obligations to others i.e., cooperating with others in contributing to a group achieving a defined goal |
Skills taught and practiced |
Standards and criteria in higher education |
Learning styles |
Deep approaches to learning |
Learning from lectures, practicals and tutorials |
Self- and peer-assessment |
Task management |
Time organisation; revisions and examination tactics |
*Note that the skills presented above are not in the form required for presentation of LOs in any formal document; for information on how to write LOs you may wish to refer to Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom et al., 1994)
torials i.e. to provide support to first year undergraduate students during the transition period. These LO’s underpinned the content of the session. Formal (tutor-led) cooperative learning groups were established to complete specific coursework assignment tasks which were determined to be the most appropriate pedagogic strategy to achieve both the requirements of the LOs and the main goal of the tutorial sessions. The application of the chosen pedagogic strategy as well as the consistency of the delivery and the assessment within-year (i.e. between different programmes and between groups within each programme), and between academic years’ was ensured through the leadership of an appointed, ‘Study Skills Co-ordinator’ in the School i.e. designated cross-programme academic leadership of staff concentrating on student-centred learning and a teaching philosophy focused on positive student experiences.
An overview of the weekly contents and format of the student transition tutorials referred to since its formal introduction into the undergraduate curricula as the Study Skills Programme (SSP) is presented in
Following registration and prior to the beginning of semester 1 of each academic year, the first year students were divided into course/degree programme specific cohorts for both subject specific lectures and practical library sessions e.g. biology vs. dietetics vs. biomedical sciences etc. Also, in the case of the lectures, these were delivered by academic staff directly involved in the development and delivery of the given programmes either in their specific academic roles (e.g. the course directors) or invited speakers representing relevant professional bodies. Such an approach supported initial development of “professional” identities, previously not well focused on first year students who were taught together in large common modules.
Following allocation into the degree specific cohorts, students were divided into small teaching/tutorial groups (7 - 16 students) observing the degree programme of study to further foster cohort identity and to provide opportunities for social interactions with their peers. Each tutorial group was assigned an academic member of staff (called a “group tutor”) who was chosen from the academic subject related to the degree programme. The tutor was responsible for the SSP content delivery and individual students’ progress over the entire semester. The tutors were inducted and mentored by the SSP Co-ordinator in all aspects of SPP prior to the start of each academic year to assure consistency of SSP delivery, including the structure, format of SSP assignments and guidance
Contents | Format |
---|---|
Introduction to the module and programme of study (aims, contents, etc.). Allocation to the groups for tutorial sessions and particulars of the tutorial sessions’ timetable. | Lecture |
IT and Library Induction (organised centrally by the University for each course). | Practical session |
Ice breaker aiming to get to know peers and staff. Introduction to studying at university/exercises on how university differs/ may differ from school (work in groups); followed up by discussion on particulars of university learning, teaching and assessment. Info and discussion on roles of studies advisors, module coordinators, course directors, students’ representatives. Study skills self-assessment exercise followed by Q&A. | Tutorial session |
Studying at university (cont.)―including exercise on “economics of failure” followed by the group discussion; outcomes of Time Management exercise and group discussion; outcomes of students assessment of their predominant learning styles followed by discussion on how to develop appropriate learning strategies; Discussion on teamworking and taskwork; introduction to peer- and self-assessment followed by Q&A. Topics of assignment given out; allocation into posters teams (formal learning groups), rules and organisation of group work, followed by Q&A. | Tutorial session |
Searching for scientific information; originality of own work vs. plagiarism; referencing (why and how). “How do I read” exercise followed by group discussion; exercises related to technical side of referencing and originality of own writing followed by discussion and Q&A. How to prepare scientific poster: rationale and technical side; practical exercises on poster preparatory steps and designs, discussion and Q&A. | Tutorial session |
Training in use of library catalogues and scientific databases. | Practical session |
Scientific writing (principles, rules, examples). Exercises related to scientific writing; formative comments on draft work (posters and individual written assignments) followed by Q&A; Skills self-re-assessment exercise. | Tutorial session |
Training in a use of selected referencing software followed be student independent work in the library. | Practical session |
Your course and its module components vs. future careers. Placement―what it is and its role for future careers. Professional bodies and/or learned societies. | Lecture |
Discussion on careers, placement options and relevant professional topics; Working on posters (finishing touches). Revision of rules of peer- and self- assessment of individual contributions to group work in light of the minutes from poster team meeting, discussion and Q&A. | Tutorial session |
Posters (presentation) session; peer-assessment of presented posters; selection of the best poster; reflection on the group work. | Tutorial session |
Preparing for examinations; formats of examination papers, revision of consequences of failure, extenuating circumstances and appeals; etc. | Lecture |
Feedback on the posters; feedback from the tutor and a summary of peer- feedback; comparing and contrasting feedback obtained with theoretical information on how to use feedback. | Tutorial session |
on marking criteria for assessment as well as the level of support which should be provided to students within and between the groups. During SSP delivery, additional support was made available to those tutors who lacked experience in small group teaching or needed clarification on any SSP related matters. The SSP handbook was developed containing the pedagogic aim of each session, a brief description of suggested activities and details of assignments and assessment and it was provided to each academic tutor prior to the beginning of teaching in each academic year.
Support materials were provided to students in a student handbook including theoretical information and practical exercises related to the SSP content. This included detailed descriptions of all assignments as well as an assessment guide with relevant examples and sample marking criteria for discussion and then agreement with the students. Notably, the materials prepared for students were supplied with examples and information relevant to the content of the course/ degree programme on which students were registered. Also, all materials for the students were in the form of hard copies (booklets) so as not to cause anxiety to those students who were unfamiliar with the university virtual learning environment (VLE), normally used to share other learning/support materials.
SSP teaching sessions e.g. tutorials, lectures and interactive library training were run on a weekly basis. Student progression and attendance at SSP sessions was monitored on a weekly basis over the entire semester allowing for early identification of those students who may have experienced difficulties with acclimatization to the university.
In week three of the semester, i.e. when all initial introductions to their new environment, peers and staff and students and the University expectations were completed, students were allocated into formal learning groups. These formal learning groups were established within the tutorials groups to work on one of the coursework assignments i.e. scientific poster (details on this assignment below).
To form the formal learning groups, the students within each tutorial group were allocated by their tutor to smaller poster teams consisting of a minimum of three to maximum of six members. The students’ allocation to the poster teams were made randomly, as even in week 3 of the semester staff were not in possession of any parameters to rationalise blocking e.g. level of academic attainment; also, unequal gender balance on some degree programmes i.e. where programmes mainly recruit female students, hence no blocking by gender. However, students were not permitted to change their poster team to be teamed up with e.g. with “their mates” from their previous home area or school. Notably, the membership of each poster group was maintained unchanged for the entire duration of the group work on the poster aiming to encourage students to learn to prevent and to resolve interpersonal issues, if such occurred.
Poster Assignment
Following the allocation to the poster teams, students were presented with the subject specific topics as well as the set of rules governing both the teamwork as well as the subsequent assessment of both the individual contribution to teamwork and the final product of their team work i.e. a scientific poster. The rules of team work were related to the assessment of both individual contribution to the team-working effort and the assessment of the final product of the teamwork; in brief those rules stipulated the following: i) team members were required to cooperate with other members of the team when planning all group activities such as organising meetings, collecting information, generating and interpreting results, technical work on the poster etc., ii) teams were required to provide evidence of individual contribution to team work and whole group progress on the poster via a) formal record of individual and group activities in a written form and b) self- and peer-assessment of contribution to team activities and work.
The written record i.e. minutes from the poster team meetings had to be prepared on a regular basis (preferably weekly) and it had to clearly reflect the group progression on the task as well as showing the individual contribution of each member to the team effort. Each written record had to be approved (signed) by all members of the poster team and submitted to the SSP tutor for formative comments. It was also a requirement that the roles of the group leader and the record keeper be rotated so that each member of the poster team was provided with an opportunity to lead the group and work on the record of group activities. The students were supplied with working examples and templates of minutes of meetings as well as a self-and peer-assessment form. The self-and peer-assessment was based on the marking criteria provided to students by the SSP tutor (see
Aspects that you need to consider; note that you need to support each aspect with evidence via previously submitted minutes from poster team meetings |
---|
Was he/she regularly at group meetings, punctual & co-operative? |
Did he/she contribute ideas and suggestions for the project? |
How well did he/she carried out the tasks assigned by the group? |
Did he/she accept a fair share of the work? |
How would you rate his/her overall contribution to the project? |
The content of weekly SSP sessions (for details please refer to
A formal presentation of the posters was scheduled during a SSP tutorial session towards the end of the semester simulating a typical poster session at a scientific meeting. The overall aim of this scheduled session was to allow students to present their scientific poster to their peers and tutor for discussion. Additionally, the tutors were advised to provide students with the formative assessment of the draft posters during one of the tutorial sessions prior to the formal poster presentation session. Also, at the formal presentation of the posters, the students were presented with an opportunity to note the strengths and weaknesses of the posters authored by other teams (peer-feedback for improvement); this exercise was guided with a simple form (see
A qualitative approach was used to assess students’ opinion on the SSP. During the initial stage i.e. within first two cycles (two academic years) of the SSP introduction into the undergraduate curricula, the annual evaluation of the SPP was based on students’ opinions collected via a simple free response, anonymous evaluation questionnaire that included open-end questions i.e.: 1) What were the
Academic Year (AY) | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | Total over the reported period |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of programmes and science disciplines (indicated in brackets) | 8 (4) | 7 (3) | 7 (3) | 7 (3) | 7 (3) | 8 (4)* |
Number of new entrants into all programmes that were included in the SSP | 133 | 175 | 115 | 141 | 152 | 716 |
Entry qualifications of new entrants included in the SSP | ||||||
A-levels [%] | 76 | 74 | 63 | 70 | 76 | 72 |
Irish Leaving Certificate [%] | 14 | 10 | 14 | 9 | 7 | 11 |
Other e.g. Higher National Diploma [%] | 11 | 15 | 23 | 21 | 17 | 17 |
*This includes all programmes/disciplines taking SSP over reported period of five consecutive academic years.
three best things about Study Skills Programme? 2) What were the three things about Study Skills Programme you would most likely to see improved? Following this two-year SSP specific evaluation, and from academic year 2010/2011 the students’ opinions relevant to the SSP were extracted from the university-wide learning and teaching evaluation system that collects students’ opinions on each unit (module) of teaching at the end of each semester of each academic year.
Over the period of five academic years, a total of 716 first year new entrants to collectively eight undergraduate BSc Hons programmes have participated in the SSP. The programmes included Biomedical Sciences (three programmes), Pharmacology, Food and Nutrition, Human Nutrition and Dietetics but by 2009/10 the Pharmacology programme had been withdrawn while the Biology programme was incorporated into the SSP (more details in
Out of 716 students, 518 students on the SSP were admitted onto their programmes based on their A-levels results. Additionally, 76 students taking the SSP were admitted based on their results from Irish Leaving Certificate (ILC) examination, which broadly equate to the British/Northern Irish A-levels. Therefore, the number of students on the SSP who came directly from the secondary type education equalled 594 i.e. 83% of all students on the SSP (see
The overall number of students recruited each year to the programmes varied (with the lowest number of 117 and the highest number of 175; see
Academic Year (AY) | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 17 | 20 | 18 | 18 | 19 |
Group tutors | 10 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 11 |
Other (lectures delivery, library training, programme coordination)* | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Staff turnover rate | |||||
All staff [%] | 21 | 29 | 20 | 27 | 27 |
Group tutors [%] | 30 | 33 | 30 | 30 | 36 |
*This includes the university staff but not invited speakers from outside of the home institution.
Academic Year (AY) | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of students who have not contributed to the group work | 0.9 | 1.2 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.3 |
Early Leavers [%] from those included in the SSP | 5.7 | 6.4 | 5.2 | 2.1 | 4.2 |
Reference data: Early Leavers [%] | |||||
Northern Ireland* | 9.0 | 8.2 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
UK* | 6.5 | 7.2 | 6.3 | 5.7 | 5.7 |
*From Summary―Higher Education Statistics Agency, UK, Performance Indicators https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/performance-indicators/summary.
as %) varied from 20% to 29% per year, while the turnover rate of group tutors varied from 30% to 36% depending on the year (see
Each academic year attendance at the weekly SSP sessions was characterised as very good (>85%) up to week 7 - 8 of the semester but then attendance decreased slightly in weeks 9 - 10 (>60%) with attendance recovering again to 100% towards the end of semester and around the time of formal poster assessment.
Overall, the participation of students in the formal learning group was excellent but in each academic year, a very small number of students did not contribute to the activities of the formal learning groups (see
In terms of the reported period (five academic years), in four of the academic years the number of students who did not participate in the formal learning groups was lower than the number of those students who left their programme within first year i.e. “early leavers” (see
The SSP specific evaluation involved collectively 215 students, including 96 and 119 i.e. 72% and 68% of the students taking the SSP in academic year 2008/09 and 2009/10, respectively. The evaluation was based on the open-end questions and thus allowed the students complete freedom in terms of their comments on the programme. Yet when asked about “Three best aspects of the SSP” 50% of all responding students listed the SSP aspects directly related to the formal learning groups that is “team-working” as the best aspects of the SSP. Second listed best aspect of the SSP have been “getting to know other students on their course” (49% of respondents), while the third aspect have been the SSP learning environment i.e. “learning/teaching in small groups” (36% respondents) and finally “poster preparation and presentation” (31% respondents). Other SSP aspects mentioned by students included subject specific lectures (10% respondents), scientific writing training (5% respondents), referencing training (5% respondents). The aspects listed by individual respondents included e.g. introduction into university life/assessments/expectations, learning styles and how to revise efficiently, interactive/activity based type of learning and teaching, learning styles assessment and training on how to revise efficiently, peer- and self- assessment exercise etc. The qualitative results of the SSP evaluation can be further exemplified by students’ comments:
“Teamwork was cool”
“Group work was enjoyable”
“Working in teams on the poster was great”
“Working in a team was best”
“Working with other members of class on assignments”
“The skills aspect of the module was very helpful. It gave me a better understanding of how the University’s policies work and how I can go about tackling any problems that I may have in relation to the University. Also, working on a poster allowed me to get to know other students on my course.”
Last but not least, when asked “What would you like to see improved with this module” the respondents suggested that SSP would benefit from more tasks that require teamworking (28% respondents) or noted that there is no need for changes (26% respondents); other individual suggestions included technical suggestions e.g.:
“decrease number and/or length of classes” (22% respondents), “provide more or longer classes” (18%), “re-schedule classes for different day and/or time of a day” (19% respondents), “provide different classroom” (8% respondents), “make Library training longer” or “make Library training shorter” (collectively 5% respondents); did not give any answer (38% respondents).
By far the largest number of respondents did not give any answer to this question (38% respondents).
To note, the SSP evaluation questionnaires were collected anonymously and completed by the students on a voluntary basis and hence did not allow for the collection of demographic data.
During the course of any higher education programme, students undergo a number of educational and social transitions of which the most obvious and arguably most significant transition occurs when they enter a new institution such as university or college of further education [
Small learning groups are also acknowledged to initiate cooperative learning [
The main characteristic of a formal cooperative learning group is that it relates to a very small number of students i.e. preferably up to five students involved in a group work for the model to be successful. Therefore, the learning and teaching of the students within relatively small tutorial cohorts of up to 16 students/group described in this paper was directly associated with the further allocation of students into smaller poster teams so as to allow for all the benefits of cooperation in learning. Other characteristics of the formal cooperative learning groups have been previously summarised by McInnerney and Roberts [
In general, a task assigned to the group can be categorized based on type of group work it instigates i.e.: a task/assignment that instigates simple workload share and the one that more likely instigates interdependent type of work [
“Group work only makes sense if the project is so big that one person cannot do all the work (think Engineering, Software, Research collaborations, Theatre, Film productions etc.). For such big projects it makes sense to assign specific roles and responsibilities to each member of the group, based on skill-set. If someone is not doing their job it will be very obvious and that person can be held to account for it.”
“I agree that probably universities want to make students work effectively in groups on a small scale, and I agree that this could be done. I think both universities and students generally fail at it because it is (most of the time) not taught or made explicit - neither at school nor at university. (Probably because most teachers or lecturers do not understand group work either.) Doing it badly is just a waste of time for everyone, especially if you can do better on your own.”
However, it has to be noted that as opposed to “low risk” tasks, the more complex work tasks, typical for normal working environment require specific knowledge and/or skills from individual members of a group. Such tasks are normally based on close interactions between the group members. Therefore, such tasks/assignments in a university setting may cause difficulties to both learners and tutors, especially if the assessment of individual contributions to the group effort is required. Also, the likelihood of within-group conflicts in relation to highly interdependent work is higher, in particular in the case of heterogeneous and newly established groups [
“The idea of group projects at university is great in theory, but in reality it often doesn’t work and results in one or two people having a nervous break down while everyone else clears off down the pub... I would much rather be judged on my own efforts as it seems fairer than either being dragged down or benefiting from others work.”
The examples above, although unorthodox, clearly support our notion that for the formal learning groups to be effective, the structure and the organisation of the groups and the assigned tasks need to be well planned beforehand taking the learners’ knowledge and skills into consideration, as it was previously observed with regards to working in teams in a workplace [
We believe our approach to transition is similar to the 3C model proposed by Sharp and co-workers [
One of the key founding principles behind the SSP programme was that it would not only improve transition and the retention of our students but also that it would instil key elements of scientific training in our students hence the selection of Short (Scientific) Report writing, the application of Scientific referencing styles and the Preparation and Presentation of a (Scientific) Poster. These key elements combined with the opportunity for students to get feedback on drafts of their work prior to submission were key, and would not be possible in large class sizes normally experienced in year one of our programmes. Through- out this process and the years when the SSP ran throughout the School the test was how to balance positive enforcement with academic achievement in the context of group work. Sharp et al. [
In conclusion, the study skills programme in the School of Biomedical Science was a success. Therefore, the decision was taken to create bespoke “skills” modules as part of the periodic review/revalidation of programmes process in 2013/ 2014. This led to the development of new individual modules/units in year 1 of the Biology, Biomedical Science and Food and Nutrition programmes. The small group tutoring and assessment elements, which were so crucial to the success of the Study Skills programme, were retained within these new modules. This case study describes a second generation approach to transition emphasising the importance of academic led small group teaching and bespoke subject specific elements in any approach to aiding students in their transition to higher education. We commend this approach to colleagues in the wider STEM area and those in the Humanities and Business areas who wish to aid their students in their transition to Higher Education.
Naughton, V. and Naughton, P.J. (2017) The Integration of Subject Specific Skills and Small Group Teaching into Year 1 of Degree Programmes: A Study Skills Programme, a School-Wide Learning and Teaching Initiative. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 300-320. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.57019