OLCPFinal

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

1/73

I n s t i t u t e f o r

t h e A d v a n c e m e n t

o f U n i v e r s i t y

L e a r n i n g

Undergraduate Students

xperience of Learning a

the University of Oxford

Keith Trigwell

Paul Ashwin

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

2/73

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford


Contents Page

1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3. Similar, relevant research on Oxford student learning and on related contexts . . . . . . . 133.1 Key aspects of the tutorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.2 Students experiences of studying at Oxford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.3 Assessment and examinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.4 Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.5 Indicators of academic performance at Cambridge University . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. Qualitative differences in experience of tutorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185. Qualitative differences in students experience of collegiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.1 Allegiance to college and colleagues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.2 Contact with others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

6. The model of learning used to inform the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256.1 Elements of the model: variables as scales and items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.2 Validity of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

7. Students response to scales and items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307.1 Results from questionnaire scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307.2 Results on individual items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

8. The relations between elements of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428.1 Relations between students perceptions of the learning environment and

their approaches to learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428.2 Relations between students conceptions of learning, their learning

motivation and their approaches to learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448.3 Relations between students approaches to learning and their outcomes of

learning and course satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448.4 Relations between student characteristics and students perceptions of

their learning environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458.5 Relations between student characteristics and their motivation and

conceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468.6 Relations between course context and students perceptions of theirlearning environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

8.7 Relations between course context and students motivation and conceptions 498.8 Relations between students perceptions of the environment and their

outcomes of learning and satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508.9 Relations between students motivation and conceptions and their

outcomes of learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518.10 Relations between student characteristics and their outcomes of learning . . . 528.11 Relations between course context and students outcomes of learning . . . . . 53

9. Differences between colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5510. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5511. Acknowledgements and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

AnnexesI Frequencies and means of questionnaire item responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59II Scale means and distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64III Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64IV Model validity Cluster analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 67V Scale and group items and reliabilities (Cronbach alpha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68VI Study Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

2

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

3/73


1.0 Summary

The Oxford Learning Context Project was a three-year project that aimed to explore

Oxford undergraduate students perceptions of their learning environment in order to find

ways of improving their learning. Undergraduate students from 17 colleges of the

University of Oxford were sent questionnaires, and responses were received from 2330

students: A response rate of 42% [Annexe III].

In examining how the perceptions of high achieving students (those who achieved First

Class Honours) differ from those of other students, the project made use of two key

resources: The report of the 1997 Commission of Inquiry [Section 2.0] and a model of

student learning [Section 6.0].

The model of student learning used to inform the study contains key factors that have

been shown in other contexts to be related to qualitatively different outcomes of learning

[Figure 1.1 and Section 6.0]. When students enter a particular learning context, they do so

with particular personal characteristics and with a range of previous experience (Student

characteristics) and they engage with a course at Oxford that is supported through the

department and college structure (Course context). Both of these presage elements are

related to product or the Outcomes of learning, and have been the focus of several

earlier studies at Oxford (such as studies of relations between entry/admission

characteristics and outcomes of learning (McCrum 1996)).

The focus for this study was on the central path through the model, with a concentration

on the process elements students learning motivation, their conceptions of what

learning at Oxford is about, their self-esteem, their experience of their learning

environment (workload, teaching, assessment, collegiality and the clarity of the coursegoals), and the qualitatively different approaches they take to their studies [Section 6.1].

Studentcharacteristics

Motivation &Conceptions

Perceptions ofenvironment

Approachto learning Outcomesof learning

Coursecontext

Figure 1.1 Adapted 3P (presage-process-product) model of student learning


3

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

4/73


Many of the conclusions from this study, described below and in Sections 7-9, are

consistent with those in previous reports (e.g. 1997 Commission of Inquiry Report, the

2003 Oxford Student Course Experience Questionnaire Report).

This study also examined some previously unreported areas of undergraduate education

at Oxford, for example:* The relations between the proportion of tutorials students have with graduate students

and their perceptions of their learning environment;

* The relations between the proportion of tutorials students have outside of their college

and their perceptions of their learning environment;

* Variation in students experience in different years of study;

* How students motivation is related to their approaches to learning; and

* How students conceptions of learning vary in relation to their learning outcomes.

The outcomes are summarised as responses to five key questions:

1. Is the University meeting its aim to provide a learning environment in which

intellectual and personal development is fostered within a stimulating multi-

disciplinary academic community?

Oxford University students found their courses interesting and intellectually stimulating.

The majority were satisfied with the quality of their degree course and the contribution of

their college to that course [Section 7.2]. The students report high levels of self-efficacy

and motivation [Section 7.1]. Students with higher levels of motivation were more likely to

report having a higher quality learning outcome (first bar chart).

Around 10% of students disagreed with statements suggesting that they approach their

learning with a focus on understanding the meaning of their subjects. Scores on this deep

approach scale are high [Annexe II], and the students who reported the highest scores

were more likely to have a higher quality learning outcome (second bar chart).

Degree Class by Motivation Scale

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Class III/Pass

Class II Div 2

Class II Div 1

Class I

Mean of Motivation (Scale 1-5)

Degree Class by Deep Approach Scale

3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4

Class III/Pass

Class II Div 2

Class II Div 1

Class I

Mean of DA (Scale 1-5)


4

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

5/73


In line with the conclusions of Moore (1963), and Sell and Robson (1998) we found that

the majority of students felt that they gained a lot from their time at Oxford. For example,

72% agreed that they benefit from being in contact with active researchers/scholars, and

68% agree that their course stimulates enthusiasm for further learning [Annexe I]. Sell and

Robson (1998) concluded that a small minority of the students involved in their study at a

single Oxford college were vulnerable and unhappy [Section 3]. In their written responses

to this survey, a similar small minority of students in all colleges indicated that they felt

alienated from Oxford. All students were asked whether they wished they had been

selected to study at another university, and 6% of students agreed [Annexe I].

2. What can be learnt from the perceptions of high-achieving students?

Results in Final Honour Schools were available for 428 of the 2330 students in the sample

population. Of these, 90 achieved First Class Honours. These students, on average,

described a pattern of responses to items on the variables in this study that were

significantly different to those described by students who achieved results below Second

Class Honours Division 1.

Students who achieved First Class Honours had a mean deep approach score of 3.81 (on

a 1-5 scale) compared with 3.21 for Pass/Third Class Honours and 3.41 for Second Class

Honours Division 2. In adopting a deep approach, students intend to understand what it is

they are learning. Similar, but opposite, relations were found for surface approaches to

learning and Final Honour Schools outcomes [Section 8.3]. In adopting a surface

approach, students are focused on reproducing course material for assessment purposes

rather then seeking to understand the meaning of what they are learning.

Students who achieved First Class Honours had higher scores on all the elements used todescribe the learning environment, and on the good teaching, appropriate workload, and

clear goals and standards indicators in particular [Section 8.8]. They were more likely to

say they were more motivated, more confident of their own ability, and more likely to

conceive of learning in ways consistent with the learning objectives of the University

[Section 8.9].

These same patterns were also found, in the whole sample, for those students who

anticipated that they will receive First Class Honours or an upper Second Class Honours

Division 1.

While the students entering Oxford would appear, on the basis of A-level results, to be a

homogenous group, there is variation in their prior experiences that accounts for some of

the differences in their learning outcomes. There is little the University can do about this.

However, this study shows that there is also variation in the ways that this relatively

homogeneous group of undergraduates perceive their learning environment, which is also

related to their learning outcomes. This suggests that changing the perceptions of the

learning environment of the lower achieving students may help to improve the quality of

their learning. For example, the higher achieving students experience aspects of their


5

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

6/73


teaching as being more supportive (first bar chart below), which may suggest that

addressing issues such as giving helpful feedback, and understanding student difficulties,

may help to improve the learning of lower achieving students. Similar sets of relations are

found for students conception of learning, with conceptions of learning of the higher

achieving students being more aligned with those espoused by the University (second bar

chart). This suggests that lower achieving students may benefit from discussions about

what conceptions of learning are appropriate for studying at Oxford.

Degree Class by Good Teaching Scale

2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Class III/Pass

Class II Div 2

Class II Div 1

Class I

Mean of GTS (Scale 1-5)

Degree Class by Conception of Learning

2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5

Class III/Pass

Class II Div 2

Class II Div 1

Class I

Mean of Learning Conception (Scale 1-5)

3. How do students describe the tutorial system?

The majority of students think about the purpose of tutorials in ways that are aligned with

the Universitys view of the purpose of tutorials. In addition, it was found that

undergraduate students who had a high proportion of tutorials with graduate students

were more likely to perceive their learning environment as less supportive. This study also

confirmed much of what is already known about the tutorial system. In line with other

studies it was found that the majority of students value the tutorial system and feel itsupports their learning. Where students do not value tutorials it was found that they were

more likely to think about the purpose of tutorials in a way that was not aligned with the

Universitys view.

In its Self Evaluation Document (University of Oxford 2003, paragraph 120), the University

states the purpose of the tutorial as it should essentially develop an individual students

capacity to think in depth about a subject area, and to operate with growing confidence

within its techniques and methodologies. The qualitative component of this study explored

the qualitative variation in students conceptions of the tutorial, and found four qualitatively

different ways in which students saw the tutorial. These were:A: Tutorials as the tutor explaining to the student what the student does not understand;

B: Tutorials as the tutor showing the student how to see the subject in the way that the

tutor does;

C: Tutorials as the tutor bringing things into relation to each other to help the student

develop a new perspective in the wider context of the discipline; and

D: Tutorials as the tutor and the student exchanging different points of view on the topic

and both coming to a new understanding [Section 4].


6

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

7/73


The conception of learning scale developed for use in the quantitative part of this study,

contains items about how students saw the purpose of tutorials (items 16 and 45 on the

questionnaire) that were drawn from this study. The questionnaire responses indicated

that over 60% of students saw the purpose of tutorials in ways that are consistent with the

Universitys stated view of the purpose of tutorials [Annexe I].

In general students value their tutorials highly and feel that they learn from them. They are

also very clear that they do not want to move away from tutorials towards a system based

more on classes. Only 7% of students agreed that they would welcome a move from a

tutorial-driven system of teaching towards one with an increased emphasis on classes

[Section 7.2]. These students, as well as the 2% of students who felt the tutorial system

had inhibited their learning, were found, in correlations with the Conceptions of learning

scale, to be more likely to be working with a conception of learning as gathering

information and having it tested rather than as developing personal understanding

[Section 7.2]. These findings suggest that some of the students who do not value the

tutorial system may not be aware of its purpose.

There was far less of a consensus amongst students views of classes, with 47% of

students agreeing that classes had enhanced their learning, 29% disagreeing and 25% of

students responding as neutral [Section 7.2]. Two possible factors have been identified for

this spread of views about classes. One is that students have mixed experiences of the

quality of classes, and this may reflect some tutors lack of experience of teaching classes.

Another is that many students may have felt that an endorsement of classes within the

survey may have offered an argument against the tutorial system.

Students who had over 50% of their tutorials with graduate students when compared to

students who had no tutorials with graduate students, perceived that their teaching was

less good, that the goals of their courses were less clear, that their workload and the way

they were assessed were less appropriate, experienced less collegiality and perceived

that they had less encouragement to develop their own academic interests [Section 8.6].

They also had lower scores on the Conceptions of learning scale, were less motivated,

and had lower levels of self-efficacy [Section 8.7]. They felt that they had less support in

improving skills in both oral and written communication and they reported not feeling as

confident about tackling unfamiliar problems [Section 8.11]. Three possible reasons for

these differences have been identified: that graduate students have insufficient support in

learning how to conduct tutorials; that graduate students subject knowledge is not as

sophisticated as college fellows; or that having a high proportion of tutorials with graduatestudents is an indicator that students have tutorials with many different tutors and that this

lack of a stable relationship with a particular tutor(s) results in them feeling less supported

in their learning. The third of these possible reasons is supported by results showing that

students who have a high proportion of their tutorials outside of their college perceive their

learning environment as being less supportive [Section 8.6]. We note here that even

though there are perceived differences between the teaching of graduate students and of

fellows, both are perceived to be at a high level of quality [Section 8.7].


7

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

8/73


There are a number of conclusions from these findings on the tutorial system. One is that

the tutorial system appears to be highly effective in supporting students learning. A

second is that helping students to understand the purpose of the tutorial system and

supporting them in experiencing the type of learning that the tutorial is aimed at may lead

students to learn more from tutorials (given the relations between students conceptions of

learning and their outcomes shown in Section 8.9) and value them even more highly. A

third is that the variation in students experience of classes would be worth investigating

further to examine whether it reflects the quality of classes that students are experiencing

or whether it indicates that, however high the quality of classes, a large proportion of

students will always prefer tutorials. A fourth is that students experience of tutorials with

graduate students could be investigated further to examine the reasons for a high

proportion of tutorials with graduate students being related to perceptions of a supportive,

but less supportive learning environment than students who have a low proportion of

tutorials with graduate students.

4. What does this study contribute to questions on teaching norms and subject

families?

The Education and Policy Standards Committee (2003) paper to Council on Learning and

Teaching in the Collegiate University: Teaching Norms and Subject Families noted, that

The evidence suggests that there is a problem, in some areas at least, of inappropriately

high workloads and a lack of clarity in course aims which may be damaging the quality of

learning.. The report associates high workloads with the combined effects of tutorial

demands and growth in other kinds of provision. It notes the high value attached by staff

and students alike, to the principle of tutorial teaching. However it argues that the steady

increase in the quantity of tutorials may have been at the expense of their best qualities

and it questions the appropriateness of the tutorial for all of the tasks to which it is nowput. [Section 7.2].

We have found in this study that a large proportion of students say they experience an

inappropriate workload [Section 7.1]. These same students are also more likely to

describe using less successful (surface) approaches to learning and have lower quality

degree results [Section 8.1]. Oxford students report spending on average, 34 hours per

week on academic study, with a standard deviation of 12 hours per week, but there is no

correlation between this range and perceived workload [Section 8.4].

Around 20% of students do not agree that the teaching they experience is good [Section7.1] and this is related to their response that they view learning at Oxford in ways that are

not consistent with those advocated by the University (that is, they see learning as, for

example, the accumulation of facts rather than the development of meaning or personal

understanding). If teaching norms are to include less tutorials to help achieve appropriate

workloads, the teaching approaches adopted should be aligned with the learning goals of

the University, and these made more explicit to students.


8

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

9/73


Students who are more likely to be seeking personal meaning and understanding from

their studies (adopting more of a deep approach) report higher intellectual stimulation and

motivation, are more confident of their own ability to achieve their academic goals, and

have a conception of learning that is more aligned with that promoted by the University.

The students who describe adopting approaches focused more on meeting the

assessment requirements through memorising rather than understanding (more of a

surface approach) report lower levels of intellectual stimulation, are less confident, have a

conception of learning that is less aligned with that promoted by the university, experience

lower levels of good teaching, less clear goals, less appropriate workloads and

assessment, lower levels of collegiality, lower co-ordination between college and

department in their course, and less encouragement from their college to pursue their own

academic interests [Sections 8.2 and 8.3].

These results suggest that higher quality student learning may result from attempts to

increase students perceptions of all these environmental indicators.

5. What differences were found in the experiences and learning outcomes of maleand female students?

In line with earlier studies (for example, Mellanby et al. 2000), this study also found a

gender- gap between the Final Honour Schools performance of male and female

students and also in the support students felt they had been given in developing the key

skills of problem solving and written communication [Section 8.10]. However, there were

no differences in the ways that male and female students perceived their learning

environment [Section 8.4], or in their levels of motivation or their conceptions of learning

[Section 8.5].

There was a difference between the self-efficacy of male and female students, with male

students feeling more confident in their abilities to perform well on their degree courses

[Section 8.5]. This difference could be related to a number of factors. There may be an

element of a self-fulfilling prophecy here, such that male students beliefs that they will do

better leads to them performing better than female students. It might be that male

students confidence is reflected in the way they write in Final Honour School and this is

something that is rewarded by examiners, as found at Cambridge [Section 3.5] or it may

be related to other factors in the environment that were not examined within this survey.

The conclusion from these findings is that the valuable work that is already taking placewithin the University to investigate the gender gap in Final Honour Schools should

continue in order to shed further light on factors that might explain the difference in

performance of male and female students.

Other observations

First year students, compared to third year students, felt more encouraged to develop

their own academic interests and perceived more coherence between their college and


9

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

10/73


department [Section 8.4]. The only other significant difference found in students

experience in different years of study was in the development of key skills. As expected,

students in later years were more likely to say they had developed skills, in this case, in

three areas an increase in the development of problem solving skills, a sharpening of

analytical skills, feeling more confident about tackling unfamiliar problems than students

in earlier years [Section 8.10].

A combination of the students previous experience and the learning environment that

their college offers them is seen to lie behind the differences between colleges in the rank

ordering presented in the Norrington Table (A rank order of colleges by Final Honour

Schools result). This is effectively a combination of the two sets of relations described in

the paths at the top and bottom of our study model. The paths through the centre of the

model constitute an additional way of rank ordering colleges. By focusing more on

motivation, conceptions, perceptions and approaches, it is a ranking based less on

student characteristics and more on the value-added by each college [Section 9.0].

Differences in students perceptions of their learning environment that are related tovariation in their previous schooling were not observed.

We conclude from this study that changes made with the aim of improving student

learning are possible, and are more likely to be successful using a more holistic, overall

approach. The consistency of the directions and magnitudes of the relations found

between the variables used to model the Oxford student learning environment suggests

the effectiveness of this approach. We found that higher quality learning outcomes are

associated with a range of perceptions and motivations that are, in turn, associated with

ways of thinking about learning. No one small change to perceptions of workload or of

teaching are likely to have a substantial effect, but an overall approach underpinned by anawareness of conceptions of learning of Oxfords teachers and students, may enable the

learning of all students to be improved [Section 10.0].

Reports on the initial findings from the data for each college were distributed to the

participating college in Trinity Term 2003. Further information on and from this study, is

available from the Institute for the Advancement of University Learning (harriet.dunbar-

[email protected]). However, information on or about a specific college will only

be released to members of that college.

Dr Keith Trigwell and Dr Paul Ashwin


November 2003


10

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

11/73


2.0 Introduction

This study aimed to explore aspects of the students learning environment in an attempt to

find ways to improve the quality of the outcomes of student learning at the University of

Oxford. In its design it was influenced by three factors: the aims of the University in

relation to the teaching and learning of undergraduate students, the findings of the

Universitys 1997 Commission of Inquiry, and research studies into undergraduatelearning from both inside and outside the University.

One of the aims of the University, according to its Corporate Plan, is to provide a learning

environment in which intellectual and personal development is fostered within a

stimulating multi-disciplinary academic community (University of Oxford 2001, paragraph

38). This study sought to examine the extent to which the University is succeeding in this

aim in relation to undergraduate students.

In 1997, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry chaired by the Principal of Jesus and

former Vice-Chancellor, Sir Peter North, was published. That inquiry addressed, andmade recommendations on, three main topics: the structure of the administration of the

University, the way finances are organised and distributed, and teaching and learning at

Oxford. The last of these topics, in particular the Commission of Inquirys investigation of

the teaching and learning of undergraduate students, is relevant to the present study and

was used as a starting point in the design of the study.

The approach taken to investigating the teaching and learning of undergraduate students

within the Commission of Inquiry was largely quantitative in two ways. First, it used

quantitative methods (questionnaires) to gather responses from undergraduate students.

Second, it focused largely on quantifying the undergraduate experience of teaching andlearning. For example, it examined the number of tutorials, classes and lectures that

students had in a fortnight, the number of students in tutorials and classes, and the

number of hours students spent studying. It also analysed these responses in relation to

college size and wealth.

However, in addition to this quantitative analysis, the survey of undergraduate students

presented students with the opportunity to make written comments on undergraduate life

in Oxford. The results of an analysis of the issues covered by students in their written

comments were listed in Paper 11 of the Commission of Inquiry, Supplementary Volume

(1997b). The issues listed most frequently by students were:a) Pressure of academic work;

b) Methods and quality of teaching;

c) Course content and organisation;

d) Lack of guidance from tutors;

e) The examination system;

f) Libraries;

g) The collegiate system;

h) Staff/student relationships and pastoral care; and


11

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

12/73


i) Financial pressures.

Paper 11 describes more fully the substance of each of these sets of comments, but no

further analysis was conducted.

The Commission of Inquiry Report noted (p.483) that despite these (mostly negative)

written comments, few students were dissatisfied with their overall experience at Oxford.

The current study sought to use the issues associated with students learning, which were

identified by the Commission of Inquiry, as one starting point for a quantitative

investigation of students experience of the undergraduate learning environment at

Oxford. A key part of this study was to investigate the relations between students

experience of the learning environment and the quality of their approaches to learning for

all of the students surveyed, and the outcomes of learning for respondents in their final

year of study. The focus of the study was on aspects of the learning environment that

students might perceive as constituting a help or a hindrance to their learning and how

these perceptions vary in different contexts. The ways in which students perceive certain

factors to be a help or a hindrance to their learning may help in the development ofapproaches for improving students learning. In adopting this focus, the report

complements the Commission of Inquiry, and the other studies that explore the more

quantitative aspects of students experience, such as studies of relations between

entry/admission characteristics and outcomes of learning (for example, McCrum 1996).

The design of the questionnaire was also informed by three sets of research studies into

undergraduate learning from both inside and outside of the University. The first set of

studies includes the qualitative research done on Oxford University, including analyses of

the tutorial system (Moore 1968, Ashwin 2002), and aspects of collegiality and

conceptions of learning at Oxford (Trigwell & Ashwin 2002). This research and itsimplications for this study are described in more detail in Sections 3 - 5. The second set of

studies, from outside the University, is research that suggests that when students

experience workloads that are too high and an assessment system that encourages recall

rather than understanding, they are more likely to adopt a lower quality, reproducing

approach to learning (surface approaches). And students who experience good teaching,

and clear goals and standards are more likely to adopt approaches aimed at developing

meaning and understanding (deep approaches) (Ramsden 2003, Lizzio et al. 2002,

Prosser & Trigwell 1999). Relations between how students perceive their learning

environment, and the quality of their learning approach and outcome, have been shown to

be useful in improving learning in other higher education contexts. The third set of studies,also from outside the University, focus on students self reports of their motivation for

learning, and how intellectual stimulation and self-efficacy are related to the quality of their

outcomes of learning (Pintrich et al. 1989). Self-efficacy and motivation items were

included with the intention of measuring relations between them and learning approaches

and outcomes. These relations might also be used to improve student learning.


12

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

13/73


3.0 Similar, relevant research on Oxford student learning and on relatedcontexts

Previous studies on the Oxford system and accounts of related undergraduate learning

environments research is reviewed in this section. It is based on reports internal to Oxford

as well as published material. The review is split into four sections on Oxford. The first

examines studies and accounts of learning and teaching; the second, studentsexperiences of studying; the third, assessment and examinations; and the fourth,

admissions. This review was used to inform the development of the study described in this

report, and it describes what was formally known when this study began. A fifth section

reviews a relevant study published recently in Cambridge.

Studies and accounts of learning and teaching at the University of Oxford have tended to

focus on the tutorial system. This is partly because the particular form of the tutorial

system is unique to Oxford and also because other aspects of the learning environment

such as lectures, classes, labs, private study, and essay writing have been seen by

students, tutors, and commentators to feed into the tutorial (Moore 1968, Kiosses 1997,Commission of Inquiry 1997a, Tapper & Palfreyman 2000, Shale 2000). For example, it

has been argued that lectures serve to stimulate students in preparing for the tutorial

(Rouverol 1955, Kiosses 1997), whilst Shale (2000) states that the purpose of essays is

for the students to develop an argument that is supported by the appropriate evidence,

which can then be used as the basis of the discussion in tutorials1. The Commission of

Inquiry (1997a) makes a similar argument about problem- and work-sheets. For this

reason the first section of this review, which deals with learning and teaching at Oxford,

will be centred on the tutorial process.

3.1 Key Aspects of the tutorial

According to most sources, the aim of the tutorial is to encourage the undergraduate to

explore a particular aspect of the subject in depth (Moore 1968, Kiosses 1997,

Commission of Inquiry 1997a, Board of Faculty of Physiological Sciences 1999, Shale

2000). However, there is qualitative variation in the way that students and tutors conceive

of the role of tutorials in students learning (Ashwin, 2002, 2003 and Section 4.0). There is

also evidence to suggest that there is some variation in the way tutorials are structured to

meet these aims (see Shale 2000, Sabri 2000 and the various tutor contributions in

Palfreyman 2001). The Faculty Board of English (1996) noted that this was because the

tutorial process puts student and tutor face-to-face in a way that is affected by distinctivepersonalities and approaches. Despite the differences in approach, the Commission of

1However, it should be noted that some studies have found that teachers and students perceive a

lack of cohesion between lectures, classes and tutorials (Coopers and Lybrand 1996, Kiosses1997, Commission of Inquiry 1997b, Oxford University Students Union Academic AffairsCommittee 1998). For this reason, the Commission of Inquiry recommended that academic boardspromote greater cohesion between these modes of learning (Commission of Inquiry 1997a,Recommendation 54c).


13

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

14/73


Inquiry (1997a), in summarising the findings of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA),

concluded that the aims of the tutorials were being met successfully.

Moore (1968) emphasised three cardinal principles of the tutorial: catering for the

individual, the co-operation between tutor and student and a particular view of knowledge.

Catering for the Individual

Moore (1968) argued that the individual nature of the tutorial allows each student to learn

at their own pace, and ask any questions they may have and the tutor to adapt the

process to the students learning needs and to give students immediate feedback on their

performance. However, Dover (1983) reported that an Oxford University Students Union

survey found that 38% of students felt that their tutors gave insufficient feedback, and

students expressed the same view to the Commission of Inquiry (1997b). The

Commission argued that this represented a misunderstanding of the tutorial process and

recommended that undergraduates be better informed of the policies on grading and

commenting on tutorial work (Commission of Inquiry 1997a, Recommendation 55).

Co-operation between Tutor and Student

Moore (1968) argued that the tutorial relationship should be one in which two minds

worked on the same problem. It is an opportunity for intellectual growth for the student

andthe tutor, in which the student should gradually acquire independence from their tutor.

The tutors role, according to Shale (2000) is, in part, to demonstrate the methods of the

scholar to enable students to achieve their own scholarly understanding. This involves a

process of the tutor rationalising between the demands of their subject and considerations

of the best way for students to learn the subject (Jaworski et al. 1999, Jaworski 2000)2.

The nature of this interaction seems to be predicated on an ongoing relationship between

the student and a single tutor who monitors their progress and directs their studies. TheCommission of Inquiry (1997b) found that 48% of tutorials were given by the students

own tutor.

Another essential part of the tutorial relationship is the student having some freedom of

choice in what they study. Whilst tutors appear to feel that students have appropriate

freedom in their studies (The Faculty Board of English 1996, Kiosses 1997) Kiosses also

found that students felt the tutor decided most of the areas of study. Other studies have

illustrated the factors that limit a high degree of freedom in studying within the tutorial

system (Moore 1968, Dover 1983).

Views of Knowledge

Moore (1968) argued that, in the tutorial, knowledge is seen as contested. The

undergraduate has the opportunity to put forward his or her own ideas and present a

critical analysis of a particular problem or proposition (Moore 1968, Kiosses 1997,

2This collaborative research resulted in the establishment of an option course on the Mathematics

degree in Mathematics Education, which is taught by Mathematics Educators within theDepartment of Education.


14

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

15/73


Commission of Inquiry 1997a, Shale 2000). This led the Commission of Inquiry (1997a) to

argue that tutorials should only be used to give undergraduates the opportunity to defend

their arguments. They should not be used to impart information, to bring first year

undergraduates up to the appropriate standards for the course, or to prepare

undergraduates for examinations. It was recommended that other methods be used to do

this (Recommendation 54).

This view of knowledge in the tutorial does not appear to apply to all subjects and to be

shared by all students. For example, Batty (1994) argued that, in mathematics, the

principal function of the tutorial was to go over the problems that caused the student

difficulty. Jaworski (2000) found a similar approach adopted in this same subject. Also,

Kiosses (1997) found that some classics students felt that it was self-evident that there

was a close relationship between tutorial essays and examination questions. Finally,

Moore (1968) and Kiosses (1997) found that when students were poorly prepared, the

tutor tended to go over the ground that the student should have covered in their essay.

These approaches appear to suggest a less contested, and more accumulative, view of

knowledge in the tutorial.

3.2 Students Experiences of Studying at Oxford

The Commission of Inquiry (1997b) suggested that students in different subjects spent on

average from about 20 - 44 hours a week studying. It also reported marked differences in

the skills that students in the sciences felt they had gained compared to those in the arts

and social sciences. For example, 70% of science students felt that they had gained team

work skills compared to 40% of arts and social science students; whereas 90% of arts and

social science students felt they were gaining written communication skills compared to

44% of science students. In response, the Commission of Inquiry (1997a) recommendedthat there should be consideration made of how teaching and assessment methods could

be used to develop a broader range of skills in Oxfords students (Recommendation 56).

A study of students perceptions of life in one Oxford college found that there was a high

level of contentment amongst the majority of students (Sell & Robson 1998). However, a

third of the respondents felt rejected on the grounds of social class and a third of women

reported having experienced sexual discrimination or harassment. The self-esteem of

female students was also lower than male students. Mellanby et al. (2000) also found this

difference in a wider study of students at Oxford. In their study of a single college, Sell &

Robson (1998) reported that 10% of students found their relationship with their tutorpositively unhelpful whilst 58% of students found the relationships with their tutors helpful.

Interestingly, Moore (1968) had previously argued that, in his experience, there were also

10% of students for whom the tutorial relationship did not work and about 60% of students

who found the relationship beneficial.

A number of students in their written comments to the Commission of Inquiry reported

concern over the variability of tutorial teaching and a perceived lack of interest from some

tutors (Commission of Inquiry 1997b). Sell & Robson (1998) concluded, from a


15

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

16/73


correlational analysis, that a small minority of students at the college were vulnerable and

unhappy.

3.3 Assessment and Examinations

In its survey of undergraduates the Commission of Inquiry (1997b) found that most

humanities and social science students were assessed by unseen examinations at the

end of their third year, although some could opt to do a thesis. There were a greater

variety of assessment methods used in the sciences, with the vast majority of students

undertaking a thesis. The Commission of Inquiry (1997a) recommended a number of

changes to the assessment process including split finals and an increased number of non-

examination-based forms of assessment (Recommendation 53).

A gap has been identified between the examination results of female and male students at

Oxford (Davies & Harr 1989, McCrum 1994, 1996, 1998, Spear 1997, Mellanby et al.

2000) and at Cambridge (for example, Spurling 1990). The size of the gender gap has

been found to vary between subjects (McCrum 1996). A number of theories have beenput forward including a greater variance in the intelligence of males (Goodhart 1988), the

style of tutorial teaching (Davies & Harr 1989), the disadvantages to females of co-

residence, the academic culture of colleges, and the effects of pre-menstrual stress during

examination time (McCrum 1994). Mellanby et al. (2000) found that whilst students verbal

ability did predict examination outcome this was not related to gender. They found that

individual differences that were related to gender were not related to outcome and

concluded that gender gap was more likely to be caused by the nature of the academic

assessment system.

3.4 Admissions

The Vice-Chancellors Working Party on Access (1999) reported that there was a lack of

applications from students from state schools and a lack of applications from females,

particularly in medicine, the physical sciences, engineering and the humanities. They also

found that there was a lower acceptance rate for students from state schools as opposed

to independent schools.

A recent study of successful state school applicants to Oxford and Cambridge conducted

on behalf of the Sutton Trust (Watts 2002), found that many of those interviewed saw

Oxbridge as academically and socially intimidating. Similarly, research by the NationalFoundation for Educational Research (see Vice-Chancellors Working Party on Access

1999, Appendix 8) into students attitudes to applying to Oxford and Cambridge found that

some students did not consider applying because of their perceptions of student life at

these universities. This included their perceptions of the cost of living, the social mix, and

the college and tutorial systems. Other barriers to applications included potential students

perception of the selection and application processes and the content of syllabi. They also

found that young males were more likely to apply than young females.


16

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

17/73


McCrum (1998) argued that the admissions interview biased against state school pupils,

and Mellanby & Stein (2000) investigated an admissions test based on approaches to

learning that would not bias against this group. They found that their test appeared to be

successful and warranted further investigation.

3.5 Indicators of academic performance at Cambridge University

The Joint Committee on Academic Performance (2003) at the University of Cambridge

has recently published a summary of a report on Indicators of Academic Performance.

The first part of the report, based on data from over 4000 students, looked at relations

between student characteristics and academic success as determined by degree results

(Tripos). The conclusion to this part of the report is reproduced below:

The summary of findings from [the] analysis shows that the factors associated withacademic success at Cambridge are very complex. The strongest associations arebetween class of degree and subject area, followed by gender and to a lesser extentethnicity. No association is found between class of degree and either social class or type ofschool attended. However, the three way interactions show that, in different subject areas,the students' gender, ethnicity, and to a lesser extent the type of school they attended,interact in different ways to produce variations in academic outcomes depending on thesubject area. Given the extent of the variation it would appear that each subject area has itsown 'profile' in terms of which combination of variables is likely to produce success. Forexample, the 'profile' of a successful student in History is very different from that of asuccessful student in Law.

(Joint Committee on Academic Performance Report, 2003, p.23)

The results show that differences in degree results cannot be ascribed to any one single

variable, and that gender and subject studied are the two largest sources of variation.

With the single exception of black students, the fact that working class students andstudents from non-white ethnic groups are in a minority within the student body does not

affect their academic performance.

The second part of the report contains a description of a quantitative and qualitative

analysis of feedback from a cohort study with 355 Cambridge students that was used to

explore the gender gap in examinations. It looked at gender differences in perceptions of

the role of learning and examinations, in examination preparation, in relations between

performance and understanding, in the transition from the school system, and finally

through teaching roles. Again, part of the conclusions are reproduced below:

[It is] speculated that women may lose ground in Tripos examinations, in the minority ofFaculties and Departments where there is a large gender gap, because they have eitherbeen unable to work in the way they would have preferred throughout the degree orbecause the way they have chosen to work is not one that is rewarded in examinations. It isthese circumstances rather than any difference in ability which may depress their results.However, [the author] drew further implications from the suggestion that women tend to seethe Tripos as an opportunity to increase their personal understanding, while men are moreinclined to tailor their intellectual development to public success. As we have seen, if thesedifferences in approach remain beneath the surface, men and women may misunderstandeach other in learning contexts and women may be misunderstood by staff who themselves


17

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

18/73


may be more or less instrumental in their approach to Tripos examinations. It is also clearthat in these Faculties and Departments some of the students felt there was littleconsensus about what constituted 'excellence', and consequently they were unsure aboutwhat is expected of them.

(Joint Committee on Academic Performance Report, 2003, p.33)

The conclusion notes that differences may be related to variation in expectations or goals,

but the report also identified many instances of good practice that would seem to benefitall students. These include a match between student motivation and methods of learning

with the teaching approach within the subject; a recognition of students' prior experiences

which is reflected in both the content and the approach to teaching in the first year; a

welcoming environment which makes the transition from school to university easier; and

clear and constructive feedback through the supervision system and help with focusing

one's efforts.

These elements of good practice are consistent with those from the literature on student-

centred teaching in most universities (for example, Ramsden 2003) and can be expected

to also apply to Oxford.

4.0 Qualitative differences in experience of tutorials

In preparation for the quantitative part of the study reported here, we interviewed

undergraduate students on their perceptions of the Oxford tutorial. This part of the study

sought to examine the following questions: What do students understand to be the role of

tutorials in their learning? Are there relations between their conceptions of the tutorials

and their understanding of the role of the work they complete in preparation for the

tutorial? Do students understandings of their own role in the tutorial and the role of the

tutor vary with their conceptions of the Oxford tutorial? Are the conceptions of knowledge

that students adopt in the tutorial related to their conception of the tutorial?

Twenty-eight undergraduates from a variety of disciplines and years of study were

interviewed about their experiences of studying at Oxford. The students were volunteers.

They were asked to describe a typical, but actual, week of study. The interviews were

then structured around this description, with particular attention paid to the meaning to

students of various activities that they engaged in their studies. In all cases this led to a

discussion about the tutorial system.

In the analysis, the focus was on qualitative variation in the ways in which the students

experienced tutorials at Oxford. The different meanings that students assigned to tutorials

were used to form categories that were formed and reformed. The aim was to offer a

hierarchy of empirically grounded and logically consistent categories of description of the

different ways in which students experienced tutorials (Marton &Booth 1997).

Four qualitatively different ways of understanding the role of tutorials were constituted in

the analysis of the interviews:


18

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

19/73


A: Tutorials as the tutor explaining to the student what the student does not understand;


tutor does;

C: Tutorials as the tutor bringing things into relation to each other to help the student

develop a new perspective in the wider context of the discipline; and


and both coming to a new understanding.

These qualitatively different understandings of the tutorial were found to be related to

different student understandings of the role of work that was completed in preparation for

the tutorial, the role of the student and the tutor in tutorials, and the conception of

knowledge that students adopted in the tutorial. These dimensions are included in

descriptions of the categories below.

A: Tutorials as the tutor explaining to the student what the student does not understand

Students adopting this conception saw the purpose of tutorials as being to check their

progress and to ensure the efficient transfer of information relevant to the topic that wasthe subject of the tutorial. The role of the preparation work was for the student to produce

an artefact, whether an essay or solutions to a series of problems, that would be used by

the tutor to assess how much the student knew, to help the student gain knowledge that

they could use in the tutorial and to help them develop an overview of the topic. The

students adopting this conception saw their role in the tutorial was to be tested by their

tutor, to use the information they had gained to answer the tutors questions, and to

absorb information from the tutor. They saw the tutors role was to test the student and to

provide the student with new information on the topic. Thus under this conception of

tutorials, students perceived knowledge as accumulative and uncontested. This is not to

say that they felt the truth could always be found but rather that they felt that newknowledge could be added to old knowledge unproblematically and that, given a certain

set of facts, there was a correct way to interpret them. Two quotes from students

illustrate some of these dimensions.

Doing the [preparatory] work is the important thing, then what you get out of the tutorialis 1) you see whether youve done it right or not, 2) youre learning whether youvedone it in an efficient way or whether theres a better way of doing it, 3) you learnwhether its really that relevant or not. So the purpose of them is to make sure youknow it, teach you the good ways of doing it, giving you more information, telling youwhats relevant, and thats about it.

(Fourth Year Physicist)

It varies very much between tutor and tutor, some tutors tutorials are like a lecture, youcome away with very organised notes, adding a lotto the information you didnt knowbefore, which is very useful. Other times you leave the tutorial not feeling like youvegained a lot from it. Some people write essays on a very high theoretical planewhere I just couldnt follow them, and some people, like me, try to stick to facts andrelatively simpler ideas. So the type of tutorial that suits you depends on that a lot. Ilike dealing with facts, I like information I can say I know this is true, or withinreasonable doubt I know this is true because you cant know for certain in history.

(Second Year Historian)


19

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

20/73



tutor does

Students adopting this conception of tutorials considered the purpose of tutorials to be for

the student to get to understand the topic in the way that the tutor did. They saw the role

of the preparation work was for the student to show the tutor how much they had

understood the material that they had studied for the tutorial. They perceived that their

role was to discuss the tutors ideas in relation to the ideas they had gained from their

preparatory work, whilst they saw the tutors role was to ask students questions that took

them beyond their initial understanding of the topic and to explain the topic in the way that

they viewed it.In this case, students saw knowledge as uncontested but it was not seen

as accumulative as, with this conception, an understanding of the topic was based on

more than an accumulation of facts. It was, rather, concerned with seeing the material in

the correct way. Again, quotes from two of the students interviewed are used to illustrate

this conception.

[The purpose of tutorials is] to put forward the things that Ive discovered from thereading that Ive done, to ask questions of areas that Im not too sure about and tohave my knowledge of the subject probed by the tutor through their questions and thenhave them explain the way that they view it and discuss those interpretations of theparticular topics, and then get a better understanding of the topics as a whole, and amuch deeper understanding. ... The tutors tend to explain the slightly more subtleaspects of the different parts of the work that were investigating. They tend to askquestions, rather leading questions, and then they lead you though the answers thatthey want you to come to until you come to the conclusion that they hope you do cometo, and by then you tend to understand what theyre trying to get you to understandand it just gives you a better understanding of the topic.

(First Year Biochemist)

Basically, Ill ask him a question often itll be that he works through it on the boardand he just keeps on working through it. I basically write down what he is doing and

try to understand what he is doing. Sometimes its just that I havent got a picture in mymind of what is happening I can do all this maths, but I dont have an image. Im notvery good at drawing graphs of these things in my mind and I cant just see what wouldhappen say to a billiard ball in a field and I cant see why its flying a particulardirection, whereas hell be able to visualise what its doing. I get a lot of new ways ofthinking about problems out of them basically. I get a lot out of them because I pick uptheir ways of approaching problems.

(Third Year Physicist)

C: Tutorials as the tutor bringing aspects of the topic into relation to each other to help the

student develop a new perspective in the wider context of the discipline

Students adopting this conception saw the purpose of tutorials as developing their ideas

to gain a new perspective on the topic, and this new perspective may also have been newto the tutor. They saw the role of preparatory work was for them to develop an argument

about the topic that was then the focus of the tutorial. They saw their role in the tutorial

was to discuss the relations that the tutor developed in relation to the students

preparatory work, whilst they saw that the role of the tutor was to develop these relations.

Under this conception of the tutorial, knowledge was seen by the student to be contested

in that they appeared not to perceive that there was one correct way to think about issues

within their discipline. Two illustrative quotes are given below.


20

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

21/73


I see it [the tutorial] as an opportunity really to show off a bit, show him what I can do,and then get his better and more learned ideas for where I could be going in the future.They are your opportunity to talk to this very wise person, who knows all the answers,and you dont want them giving you the answers, but you want them to make you thinkdifferently, and thats what its about, thinking differently.

(First Year English)

The most scary tutor I ever had was quite terrifying actually. He was very nice but his

tutorials, you used to come out of them like youd forcibly rearranged the ideas in yourhead, and youd actually understand it in the end. Hed pick out things you didnt evenrealise youd misunderstood and interrogate you about it until you knew what youdmisunderstood. Thats what tutors should do really otherwise you dont learn anythingfrom them, so theres not really much point in them teaching you really. They may aswell give you a list of books to read for the term and thatll be it. If they dont questionyou and find out what you havent understood, then you tend not to learn anything newfrom them. You might learn new facts, but you wont gain any new understanding. Bybeing asked questions you find out what you have and havent understood, and arepushed into understanding things yourself, as opposed to just told what your tutorthinks about them. If the tutor asks you a factual question they probably know theanswer. If they ask you what you think about something, they generally dont know theanswer. Well obviously they dont know what you think about it, but they also dont

know what you shouldthink about it.(Second Year Experimental Psychologist)

The quotation from the psychology student is interesting because it gives evidence

of the conceptions forming a nested hierarchy. The first part of the quotation focuses

on the tutors role in the tutorial being to ask questions that takes the student beyond

their initial understanding as in Conception B. However, the second part of the

quotation moves to focus on the student developing their own understanding of the

topic that may differ from the understanding of the tutor.


and both coming to a new understanding

Students adopting this conception of tutorials saw that the purpose of tutorials was for the

students and tutors to develop their ideas about the topic. As with conception C, they

perceived that the role of their preparatory work was for them to develop an initial

argument about the topic that was then the focus of the tutorial. The role of both student

and tutor was to discuss their ideas about the topic in relation to the students preparatory

work, whilst the tutor had an additional responsibility to chair the discussion. Here the

relationship between the student and the tutor was seen as more reciprocal than under

conception C, whilst, as with conception C, knowledge was seen as contested.

It will often involve a discussion of both the plays relation to each other and itsbasically a discussion where you can either agree or disagree with whoever and itkeeps going until the tutor says right, thats the end. In that respect it doesntparticularly have a conclusion to it like an essay would, it just gets you thinking andoften leaves you with a different perspective at the end of it, which is pretty much whatI would want to get out of it. . . The whole idea is that it will prompt you to re-think whatyouve written or to add something new to it.

(Second Year English)

The apogee of the tutorial is where you dont know, the tutor doesnt know, butbetween the two of you youre going to analyse this thing. I love it when youre in with


21

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

22/73


someone like Professor X and hes just whacking books off the shelf, getting maps out.Hes there on his hands and knees and between the two of you, you manage to clarifysomething and thats a tremendous experience.

(Third Year History)

In summary, there is variation in the way that students conceive of the role of tutorials in

their learning. Some students felt that the tutorial was mainly there for the tutor to impart

information to the student, whilst others saw that the primary purpose of the tutorial wasfor students to explore and develop their understanding of the topic under discussion. This

range of categories shows that there is qualitative variation in the way students

experience tutorials and that students from similar disciplines and years of study were

found to have differing conceptions of the Oxford tutorial. We have used these data to

develop some of the items in the questionnaire study described in the following sections,

and importantly to capture the qualitative variation that enables correlation studies to be

designed and conducted.

5.0 Qualitative differences in students experience of collegiality

An interview study on students experience of learning through collegiality was also

undertaken in the first year of this project to support the quantitative study. Students were

asked to describe how life in their college, outside the formal teaching-learning process,

was related to their experience of learning.

Twenty-eight undergraduates from a variety of disciplines and years of study were

interviewed. The students were volunteers. They were asked to describe a typical, but

actual, week of study. The interviews were then structured around this description, with

particular attention paid to activities that they saw being related to collegiality.

Students describe two different forms of collegiality. In the first, they talk of the feelings

generated by their sense of allegiance to the college and to colleagues. The second form

relates to the various types of interpersonal contact experienced in college. While these

forms of collegiality do not form a hierarchy as described in the previous section for

tutorials, there is a sense in which students engage to a greater or lesser degree in

contact with others, and with different others, and experience different levels of support for

their learning through this contact.

5.1 Allegiance to college and colleagues

In addition to the domestic (meals, etc) support provided by colleges, students also get

support for their learning through the collegiate system. At the core of students

descriptions is that learning is enhanced by a sense of allegiance which, with pride in, and

respect for their college, fosters a desire to not let the college down. Students also have

a sense of belonging to a college, and this feeling contributes to a reduction in alienation

and development of friendships and an opportunity to do things.


22

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

23/73


theres a lot more opportunity to do things, to get involved with politics, work, sport,music, theres so many more activities and things going on, that youve got more chanceto get involved. [and in a] small environment, even if people are different to you andyou dont want to socialise with them, you still pick up on who they are and what theyrelike, which means that Id say you get more - I dont know if respect is the right word, butthat kind of thing, I cant think of the word. So thats really good in terms of it probablyreduces the feelings of exclusion. Id say in a college system, you dont feel quite aslonely.

5.2 Contact with others

Students who describe learning support through the informal contact with other people in

their college, talk of four different types of people with whom they have contact:

a) Contact with other students in the same discipline and same year

This is the major type of contact between students, and because of the tutorial

system, the major form of informal collegiate learning support.

During lunch I would usually sit with my year, there are two or three PPEists in thesecond year that I know relatively well, most of them have either been as my social oracademic parent at the beginning of the year or I met them in first week when I arrivedrelatively early and there were no First Years to talk to. I also chat to some of them overthe Internet, because we have Ethernet connections in our rooms. I do haveconversations with them sometimes, but the vast majority of conversations are with theFirst Years.

b) Contact with other students in the same discipline in other years

The small size of a discipline group within a college enhances the possibility of

exchanges that lead to learning between students in different years. This was often

talked about in terms of learning how more experienced students had made their way

through the system.

Interviewer: Do you do much talking to colleagues in English and talking to colleaguesin PPE or science or whatever? To what extent does that happen in the college?

Student: Certainly quite a lot as far as talking to fellow English students is concerned, andnot just fellow Second Year English students, but also talking to First Year Englishstudents and Third Year English students partly because there are benefits in talking tothem, particularly talking to the Third Year students because they know their way throughthe system, theyve had the experience of being a Second Year and have made mistakesand have learnt and theyre in the course of making mistakes and learning in the ThirdYear and preparing for Finals. So theres a significant element in that, but also I supposewhen you have a group of people to whom you could talk then youre more likely to talk tothose people with whom you have something in common and studying the same subjectis certainly quite a [unclear] for that. So theres quite a lot of talking over lunch, in thequad, in the Junior Common Room, over coffee, in the pub, going to the theatre together.

c) Contact with students in different disciplines

One of the advantages of the small, multi-disciplinary collegiate context is that

students may have the opportunity to spend more time with students from different

disciplines in ways that may contribute to learning. This experience seemed less

common amongst the students who were interviewed:


23

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

24/73


Student: You do also talk to other students. Theres a greater sense of engagement if youknow that theres some relevance to your subject and the nature of the study of English issuch that History, Politics, Philosophy, Economics, Theology and Religion all have verysignificant relevance.

Interviewer: Would you ever deliberately engage in a conversation with a student from oneof those fields as a way of informing yourself about your own English essays, or do yourely on the books and the primary resources?

Student: You might look for a sort of sense of directional guidance but that doesnt happenthat often, its sort of painting in background detail, rather than going for you wouldntconstruct an essay or even a paragraph in an essay, on what a fellow student said.

Interviewer: Right but you might use it to find a source of information.

Student: Yeah, or they might say something that you think oh, thats got some relevance,Ill go off and look into that. That happens occasionally, but not very frequently.

d) Contact with tutors/fellows

The close geographic proximity of tutors/fellows and students may not be that differentto that in departments in other universities, but informal contact with academic staff is

an additional source of learning support that may, in some cases, be more accessible

because of the type of formal tutor/student contact developed in the college system.

Interviewer: Do you have much contact with the fellows, the tutors, outside of yourtutorials?

Student1: Yes, you tend to see them and theyre quite open to discuss things with you soif you have a problem and things like that you can go and see them.You can actually go and see them in their study room, knock on the door and they usually

have two/three minutes to devote to you. Theyre actually quite good and quite helpfulbecause when you tend to get stressed they have a sort of soothing voice and theyrequite wise.

Interviewer: How much a part of a collegial atmosphere are they are they around to betalked to, do they chat with people in quads?

Student2: Yeah they do. It varies from tutor to tutor some tutors are very friendly,talkative, responsive, youll sit down at lunch and talk quite happily to them predominantlyabout work but it may also be about their skiing holiday. That however is influenced bywhether the college has a high table or not, even at lunchtime, so that some colleges thatIve been to, the tutors mingle with the students, at ours its unusual for tutors to sit on thesame table. It only happens if the high table is full, but there is a lot of interactionbecause you do run into them in the quad or indeed walking along the street and

sometimes youll be busy, very busy, sometimes youll stop and talk to them.

From this range of responses, a series of questionnaire items were developed for the

quantitative part of this study that sought to examine students sense of allegiance to their

college and how the different types of informal contact described above impacted on their

learning. They became the collegiality scale described in the next section. The seven

items derived from the data above are shown in Annexe V.


24

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

25/73


6.0 The model of learning used to inform the study

The aim of this research is to explore ways to improve the quality of the outcomes of

student learning at the University of Oxford. We approached this task using a model

(Figure 6.1) to select the key areas to be explored and the hypothesised relations

between them. As noted above, previous research has been conducted with Oxford

University students on some elements of this model, mainly the relations between

elements represented by the broken lines.

Presage Process Product

Studentcharacteristics(eg previousschooling, year ofstudy, gender)

Motivation &Conceptions(eg conceptionof learning, selfefficacy)

Perceptions ofenvironment(e.g. teaching,workload, goals)

Approachto learning(eg surface,deep)

Outcomesof learning(eg FHS,satisfaction)

Coursecontext(eg division,tutorial system)

Figure 6.1: Adapted 3P model of student learning

This model, which is an adaptation of Biggs 3P model of student learning (Biggs, 1993),

suggests that in learning, Presage elements (Student characteristics and Course context)

are related to Process elements (Motivation & Conceptions, Perceptions of the learning

environment, and Approaches to learning) and that these are related to the Product

element, or the Outcomes of student learning. Differences in students characteristics,

such as gender or their previous schooling may be directly related to differences in the

quality of their learning outcome. Similarly, differences in the course context, such as

levels of resources (libraries, computing equipment) may relate to differences in


25

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

26/73


outcomes. Studies exploring these relations are well known and some have already been

conducted at Oxford.

This study investigates all elements of the model, but focuses more on the central path

through the model. It hypothesises that motivation and conceptions of learning are

experienced differently by the same student in different situations. If this is so, how do

these variables relate to students characteristics and to the context of the course?

Similarly for students perceptions of their learning environment. Differences in

approaches to learning are known, from studies in contexts other than at Oxford, to be

related to outcomes of learning (Prosser & Trigwell 1999). But are similar relations found

at Oxford? And finally how do students perceptions, conceptions and motivations relate to

their outcomes of learning?

We focus on this central set of relations, and these questions, because they are aspects

of the students environment (rather than characteristics of the student) that, if changed,

may lead to the improvement of student learning. For example, relations between

perceived workload and learning outcomes suggest that the quality of learning may beenhanced if workload is perceived to be not too high. Such a pattern of relations is not

found for indicators that are often included in studies of this sort. For example, correlations

between the average number of hours university students report that they spend studying

in a week and their approaches to learning, their overall satisfaction and their anticipated

degree results are all low (less than 0.1). This suggests that in the context of learning at

Oxford, increasing the number of hours worked is unlikely to enhance the quality of

learning.

6.1 Elements of the model: Variables as Scales and Items

6.1.1 Presage: Student Characteristics

In this study we made use of three aspects of the students characteristics or prior

experience: gender, year of study at Oxford, and type of school attended before coming to

Oxford. We also asked students how many hours study they did each week, on average.

6.1.2 Presage: Course Context

In addition to collecting information on each students course (from which we derived theirDivision3), we asked them to indicate the percentage of tutorials they have that are given

by graduate students, the percentage of tutorials they have outside their own college, and

the percentage of their tutorials/classes that are in groups of one or two, three to five, and

six or more.

3Using the University Student Administration Section categorisation of division in the case of Joint Honours

courses that involve more than one division.


26

7/28/2019 OLCPFinal

27/73


6.1.3 Process: Motivations & Conceptions

Conceptions of learning (Scale) (Annexe V)

Eight items were used to form a scale that measures conceptions of learning in tutorials

and conceptions of learning in the degree as a whole. Four items look at the extent to

which students see the tutorial system as a positive experience that aims to support

higher-level learning. The other four items focus on students perceived purpose of their

learning in their degree. The scale was developed from the qualitative research described

in Section 4 and, based on previous research (Trigwell & Ashwin 2003), higher scores on

this scale are hypothesised to be related to higher quality outcomes of learning.

Motivation (Scale) (Annexe V)

The motivation scale is a combination of items that include students assessment of the

perceived value of the activities with which they are involved. Perceived value includes

interest items, utility items and importance items. The scale also includes items on the

intellectual stimulation of the course and the extent to which a course stimulates interest in

that field of study. Higher scores on this scale are hypothesised to be related to higherquality outcomes of learning.

Self-efficacy (Scale) (Annexe V)

This scale gives an indication of students confidence in their own ability to achieve their

desired outcomes in the context of their studies at Oxford. It is a scale adapted from self-

efficacy items in the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich et

al. 1989). Higher scores on self-efficacy are hypothesised as being related to higher

quality learning outcomes.

6.1.4 Process: Perceptions of Learning Environment

Good Teaching (Scale) (Annexe V)

The Good TeachingScale measures perceptions of the teachers ability to contribute to

student learning. It is characterised by practices such as providing students with feedback

on their progress, explaining things, making the course interesting, motivating students,

and understanding students problems. There is a body of research linking these practices

to learning outcomes. High scores on the Good TeachingScale are associated with the

perception that these practices are present. Lower scores reflect a perception that these

practices occur less frequently.

Clear Goals and Standards (Scale) (Annexe V)

The Clear Goals and Standards Scale measures the extent to which students have a clear

idea of what, at a broad level, is required of them in their degree. Even though the

establishment of clear goals and standards in a course could be considered part of good

teaching in a broader sense, it would be possible to utilise the practices encompassed by

the Good TeachingScale but fail to establish clear goals for the course and clear

expectations of the standard of work required from students.

Institute for the Advancemen

OLCPFinal

Documents

Transcript of OLCPFinal