
A. A. BILGIN ET AL.
variables: age, sex, international/domestic status, whether Eng-
lish is the main language spoken at home, part-time/full-time
status, and the faculty of enrolment.
Categorical variables overwhelmingly taking a single value
were removed from consideration.
The collected surveys had very little missing data (1.7% of
fields). The items in the data set are presented in Tables 1-5:
Table 1 describes the demographic and timetable variables, and
Tables 2-4 describe Likert scale variables measuring students’
attitudes to the space, the learning and teaching activities, their
own learning style, and the class’s interpersonal dynamics,
respectively.
Statistics and Data Analysis
The statistical analysis was done in R (R Development Core
Team 2012) using the coin package (Conditional Inference
Procedures in a Permutation Test Framework) and the built-in
stats package. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard devia-
tion) for all variables are presented. Associations between
demographic/timetable variables and Likert responses were
tested at 5% and 1% significance levels, using rank tests: the
Wilcoxon rank sum test for dichotomous—ordinal associations,
the Kendall tau test for ordinal—ordinal associations and the
Kruskal-Wallis test for nominal—ordinal associations.
Results
Demographic groups found to be significantly overrepre-
sented in the survey sample were women (65.3% of respon-
dents but 54.4% of the class), students who spoke English at
home (10.0% of respondents but 3.7% of the class) and
part-time students (2.7% of respondents but 0.3% of the class).
In fact, more students claimed on the survey to speak English at
home and to be part-time students than were counted in those
categories in the enrolment database, suggesting varying inter-
pretations. These two variables, whether English is spoken at
home and full-time/part-time status, were both omitted from
subsequent analysis, along with faculty of enrolment, because
in each case, in either the class or the sample or both, one value
was overwhelmingly popular. The sex bias is substantial but
tolerable.
Table 2 shows that students generally considered the room
(C5C Forum) a suitable learning environment, with no very
significant (p < 0.01) demographic or timetable trends.
Table 3 shows an overall positive response to the teaching
and learning activities. Interestingly, in this group, students
most often agreed that they found it worthwhile to see other
students presenting their solutions to problems, but least often
feltconfident themselves to present solutions to the class. There
were two very significant associations: students with a heavier
course load showed a greater tendency to agree that they were
given an opportunity to work with other students on in-class
activities, and to be satisfied that the class provided a high
quality and valuable learning experience.
Table 3 also shows that a student’s timetabled practical class
was significantly (0.01 ≤ p < 0.05) associated with the percep-
tion that a variety of teaching methods were used, that the class
enhanced critical thinking ability, and that students were given
enough time to present their solutions to the class.
Table 4 gauged students’ learning styles. There were three
very significant associations, with older students more likely to
estrict their study to set work, and students in the evening lec-
tures more likely to look at the suggested readings and to find
working with others productive.
r
Table 5 shows that, overall, students found each other and,
especially, the teaching staff to be supportive and available.
Women found other students friendly and supportive (mean
5.21) significantly more than men did (mean = 4.61).
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall the results of this survey support the innovations we
have made to the location and structure of the practical classes.
The very significant associations in Table 4 are consistent
with our prior impression that older students and employed
students (who tend to be the ones in evening lectures) have
more focused and strategic study habits.
We have no control over the demographic variables, so the
associations most relevant to the refinement of our teaching
practice were those involving which practical class a student
attended. We found that the practical sessions varied in effect-
tive time management, in enhancement of critical thinking, and
in students’ perception of a variety of teaching methods. This
accorded with our finding, in observing the practical sessions
that the various tutors took quite different approaches to run-
ning the sessions, and that some were more skilled than others
at running the sessions to a workable schedule.
We have, of course, no wish to stamp out the personality of
any of our tutors, but more consistency seemed desirable, and
the quantitative and qualitative data collected from this study
led us to develop prescriptive lesson plans, outlining each prac-
tical session’s learning objectives and a timetabled sequence of
activities. This is an ongoing study, and the results of this re-
finement will be reported in a future publication.
Acknowledgements
This project is funded through the Innovation and Scholar-
ship Program, Faculty of Science Learning and Teaching
Grants Scheme at Macquarie University. The authors also wish
to express their appreciation to Dr Nino Kordzhakhia, Ms Bala
Pasupathy, Mr Anthony Lam, Mr Darren Johnson,Mr Ademir
Hajdarpasic , and Mr Grant Adams.
REFERENCES
Aagard, H., Bowen, K., & Olesova, L. (2010). Hotseat: Opening the
Backchannel in Large Lectures. Educause Quarterly, 33, 3.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor
study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 71, 133-149. doi:10.1348/000709901158433
Bulger, D., Bilgin, A., Robertson, G., & Gudlaugsdottir, S. (Forthcom-
ing). Consistency of the repeat practical session for a large unit. [De-
tails to come].
Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE), University of Maryland. (2008).
Large classes: A teaching guide: Personalizing the large class.
http://www.cte.umd.edu/library/teachingLargeClass/guide/ch4.html
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of self-
managed learning groups: Understanding students’ choices and con-
cerns. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 689-703.
doi:10.1080/03075070601004309
R Development Core Team (2012). An introduction to R, version
2.15.1 R foundation for statistical computing. URL (last checked 29
August 2012). http://cran.r-project.org/
Radloff, A., & Coates, H. (2010). Doing more for learning: Enhancing
engagement and outcomes: Australasian survey of student engage-
ment: Australasian student engagement report. Camberwell, VIC:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
828