- Email: [email protected]
Engaging undergraduate nursing students in face-to-face tutorials
Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education in Practice journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nepr
Engaging undergraduate nursing students in face-to-face tutorials Ruth L. Elder*, Peter A. Lewis 1, Carol A. Windsor 2, Margaret Wheeler 3, Elizabeth Forster 4, Joanne Foster 5, Helen Chapman Queensland University of Technology, Australia
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Accepted 2 February 2011
Chronic nursing shortages have placed increasing pressure on many nursing schools to recruit greater numbers of students with the consequence of larger class sizes. Larger class sizes have the potential to lead to student disengagement. This paper describes a case study that examined the strategies used by a group of nursing lecturers to engage students and to overcome passivity in a Bachelor of Nursing programme. A non-participant observer attended 20 tutorials to observe five academics deliver four tutorials each. Academics were interviewed both individually and as a group following the completion of all tutorial observations. All observations, field notes, interviews and focus groups were coded separately and major themes identified. From this analysis two broad categories emerged: getting students involved; and engagement as a struggle. Academics used a wide variety of techniques to interest and involve students. Additionally, academics desired an equal relationship with students. They believed that both they and the students had some power to influence the dynamics of tutorials and that neither party had ultimate power. The findings of this study serve to re-emphasise past literature which suggests that to engage students, the academics must also engage. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Engagement Involvement Tutorials
Introduction The pressures of a large, diverse student body have affected many nursing schools in Australia. Critical nursing shortages have often led to a focus on recruitment, which in turn has led to many universities enrolling large numbers of nursing students. Faculty often struggles to create a satisfying and productive learning environment under these circumstances. Driving the research reported in this paper were observed differences in student preparation and attendance at tutorials across different subjects within an undergraduate nursing degree. While some of these differences could be explained by the impact of clinical practicum, practicum could not explain all of them. The purpose of this research was to improve the authors’ understanding of student engagement within
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ617 3138 3836; fax: þ617 3138 3814. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.L. Elder), [email protected] (P.A. Lewis), [email protected] (C.A. Windsor), [email protected] (M. Wheeler), [email protected] (E. Forster), [email protected] (J. Foster), h.chapman@qut. edu.au (H. Chapman). 1 Tel.: þ617 3138 3834. 2 Tel.: þ617 3138 3837. 3 Tel.: þ617 3138 9757. 4 Tel.: þ617 3138 5948. 5 Tel.: þ617 3138 3876. 1471-5953/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2011.02.003
face-to-face tutorials in an undergraduate, internally delivered Bachelor of Nursing course. Literature review A number of changes in the higher education sector have served to increase the diversity of tertiary student groups. Changes driving student diversity at university include: the greater number of university enrolments; the internationalisation of the higher education sector; and a larger proportion of students who derive from historically underrepresented groups such as women, Indigenous students, and students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Many of the students who belong to the latter two groups are also educationally disadvantaged, while many international students have English as a second language. As such, the past decade has seen heightened, worldwide interest in the processes of student engagement at university (Astin, 1999; Chickering, 2006; Krause, 2005; Krause and Coates, 2008; Kuh et al., 2005; Markwell, 2007). Student engagement, defined as involvement with the activities likely to produce high quality learning outcomes (ACER, 2010; Coates, 2006), is widely recognised as important to student success at university (Krause and Coates, 2008; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). However, engaging a diverse range of students is very challenging. Small classes and frequent studentestaff interaction are widely recognised as important to
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319
engaging students (Astin, 1999; Krause and Coates, 2008) and as contributing to active learning (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). Both of these characteristics are often missing in large schools of nursing. So it is not unusual to hear nursing academics complain that students are not motivated to attend and to participate, an impression borne out by the 2009 Australian University Survey of Student Engagement (ACER, 2010) and the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2008) conducted in the USA. In Australia and New Zealand the students were found to spend only 8 h preparing for classes, while the NSSE found one in five students did not prepare for classes. D’Aloisio (2006) for example, claims that contemporary students are motivated by external rewards, such as better jobs and pay and not by the desire for knowledge on its own, suggesting that it is up to teachers to structure learning situations to motivate students (Ainley, 2004). This renewed interest in student engagement sits somewhat uncomfortably beside other social forces that appear to be pushing in the opposite direction. While much of the focus has been on what the institution does to induce students to engage with their studies, less attention has been paid recently to the role of faculty in promoting student engagement in the classroom, even though interaction between faculty and students has been identified as critical to engaging students (Astin, 1999; Chickering and Gamson, 1987; Laird et al., 2009; Coates, 2006). Davis and Murrell (1993) and more recently, Krause and Coates (2008) argue that staff is important to creating the conditions that encourage students to become involved. Teacher approachability is one of nine qualities used to conceptualise student engagement on the AUSSE (Coates, 2006).Gump (2004) found that an interesting teacher was one of the most common reasons students gave for attending tertiary classes. Furthermore, as Laird and her group argue, it is faculty who directly observes students and can report students’ preferences for various teaching and learning strategies. Astin, one of the early pioneers of the concept of student involvement, considered involvement to be an outcome, in part, of the effort made by faculty. In response to a School of Nursing and Midwifery initiative aimed at encouraging research into teaching and learning, a group of six, full-time members of the academic staff successfully applied for funding for this project. The funding paid for a research assistant who was also an experienced academic.
315
undergraduate Bachelor of Nursing students. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from QUT’s Ethics Committee. The staff involved in this study were all full-time members of the QUT academic staff. All were experienced lecturers, having taught for more than ten years. With the exception of one academic, all taught core nursing theory subjects with a focus on the provision of nursing care in a variety of health settings. Student attendance at classes was not mandatory for any subject. Five of the six subjects involved in this study were core units while one was an elective. The tutorials were designed to accommodate 20e30 students. Academics involved in this study delivered between six and nine tutorials most weeks across the semester. Large tutorial size had been a concern of many academic staff in terms of its effect on interaction and the fact students were often anonymous to their teachers and unable to interact frequently with them. Because the study was focused on what academic staff did in tutorials, the principal method of data collection was non-participant observation. A research assistant who was also an experienced academic was employed to take the role of a non-participant observer. One academic was not observed, because she was not teaching in the semester the study was undertaken. Four tutorials in each of the five subjects were observed, giving a total of 30 h of observations. These observations formed the context of the study. An initial protocol which recorded time, place, setting, length of observation, description of tutorial and reflective notes was developed and used. The observer kept a record of observations in the form of descriptive field notes. At the completion of the observation period, academic staff were each interviewed individually for approximately 1 h by the research assistant. As a follow up to this, two, 1 h focus groups of all participating academic staff members were conducted. Both the interviews and the focus groups, which were conducted as semiformal conversations, enabled the academic staff to explore in greater depth their perceptions about student engagement and the meanings they attributed to their actions and those of the students. The focus groups were transcribed live by a stenographer, while the interviews were audio-taped and later transcribed. The data were analysed by intensively reading through the field notes, observations, transcripts of interviews and focus groups multiple times and interrogated using the following questions (Srivastava and Hopwood, 2009):
Research design The study was conducted in second semester 2008 as an embedded, single case with multiple units of analysis (Yin, 2009). It was designed to provide the participants with practical knowledge about their specific context, and to help the authors learn more about themselves and their students. The intermediate units of analysis were tutorial classes. Tutorials were identified as important sites for the engagement of students in learning because they provide opportunities not available through other media. Tutorials supplement lectures and textbooks and provide a variety of teaching and learning activities which can better cater for students’ diverse learning styles (Biggs, 2003). They also afford opportunities to provide and receive feedback which is predominantly formative, and to explore in greater depth the knowledge within a particular subject (Phillips, 2005). Tutorials are perceived also to be a less threatening and more personal environment. Students have the opportunity to better know their peers while tutors can better know their students (Exley and Dennick, 2004). Furthermore, as Markwell (2007) notes, engagement in different contexts may have different appearances. The research took place in the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) School of Nursing and Midwifery. This large, metropolitan university in Brisbane, Australia has approximately 2400
1. What does the interview data reveal about engagement in tutorials? 2. What does the focus group data reveal about engagement in tutorials? 3. What does the observational data reveal about engagement in tutorials? 4. What is it I want to know? Do tutors engage students? What do tutors do in tutorials to engage students? 5. What is the dialectical relationship between what the data are telling me and what I want to know? Are there any gaps between what is said/done in the three sources of data? All observations, field notes, interviews and focus groups were coded separately and major themes identified. As the coding proceeded, memos were made when gaps were identified. From this analysis two broad categories emerged: getting students involved and engagement as struggle. What follows is a description of each. Words used by the observer or participants are italicised. Theme 1: getting students involved The data demonstrated the extent to which academics go to make their tutorials stimulating and the wide variety of techniques
316
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319
they use to interest and involve students. Engagement emerged not simply as a response to what academics do, but an outcome, as Astin (1999) argues of the interaction among students, academics, materials, and techniques. The interview data pointed most strongly to academics’ understanding of engagement as student involvement, which accorded strongly with recent definitions (ACER, 2010; Astin, 1999; Krause and Coates, 2008). The academics considered themselves as bearing the most responsibility for attracting students into their tutorials, making them interesting and stimulating, and they used various strategies to entice students. None used compulsory attendance as a means of getting students to come; instead they sought to get students to come to class by “[giving] them a personal stake.”; by “[giving] them reasons to come to class”. All academics strived to help students who did attend tutorials to concentrate on the tutorial activities. There was no consensus, however, as to whether students should attend all tutorials, a disagreement reflected in the literature (see for example, Romer, 1993; St. Clair, 1999). While it was hoped students would attend all tutorials some academics realised that there were opportunity costs associated with attendance (Romer, 1993). They recognised that many students had numerous other commitments such as “work and family” which they may prioritise ahead of tutorial attendance. Academics believed that students attending tutorials needed to take responsibility for their own learning. They believed there had to be a shift in responsibility; that it was more of a “2-way street” and required “an element of interest on the part of both parties”. These findings are interesting in the light of findings from the NSSE (2008) that found many students were spending only about half as much time preparing for their classes as academics thought they should. This report concluded that many students were not upholding their end of the educational bargain. The significance of “mutuality” and “sharing” for the academics was that it provided them with feedback about students’ level of understanding, their interest in the material, and making tutorials more interesting for them. Academics used a wide a variety of techniques to try to interest students in the tutorial. Case studies and short, clinically-based scenarios were among the most used materials; one of the most common techniques was the use of small groups. The observational data demonstrated most tutorials to contain 16e22 students and that within this size range, most would be broken up into four or five smaller sub-groups. Academics’ interventions in the forms of moving among small groups and/or joining with them, asking and responding to questions; and reinforcing and expanding on student responses were all effective in holding students’ interest. Less effective were strategies where either the academic or students dominated. Anyone holding the floor for longer than 10 min, whether the academic or a group of students in a student-led discussion, tended to reduce the level of energy within the tutorial. Questioning was an instructional technique used by all academics. However, it was not the act of asking questions that seemed to matter, but rather the manner in which academics were able to draw students in. The observational data pointed to the wide use of provocative (Zsohar and Smith, 2006) and Socratic questioning techniques. The types of questions most likely to spark student interest were questions built on what they already knew. They were conducted as conversations (Laurillard, 2002) that drew on lectures, laboratory and clinical practicums as well as their life experiences: “Do you know anyone who has.?” “What are you thinking about.?” “What question would you really like to ask of.?” “Can you give an example of.?” “How would you handle this situation?” “What else would you like to know?” Their questioning strategies appeared heavily focused on getting students to listen, and checking if they had heard and understood. The interviews and
focus groups provided information about how the academics perceived their own questioning methods. The most common strategy was to try to pull on something they [the student] have done before. whether that was their own personal experiences, experiences from clinical practicum or what they had learnt in other subjects. Academics would also try to give students confidence by asking easy, teaser questions first, that they are likely to know the answer to. Academics also told stories and anecdotes from their own clinical or personal experiences; and used visual materials such as images, pictures and short excerpts from YouTube or other videos. Identified previously as important to encouraging learning (Kuh et al., 2005), the observational data noted the physical environment within which tutorials occurred. Academics, however, tended to pay little attention to the environment in either their interviews or the focus groups e they appeared to be much more attuned to the emotional climate of the tutorial. The academics were very much focused on the ambience and tone of their tutorials and they made considerable effort to make them “fun”, “enjoyable”, “relaxed” or “informal”. None however, specifically stated that they set out to “inspire” students (Ainley, 2004). The academics all desired an equal relationship with students and there is a strong egalitarian ethic in the school where students use the academics first names. The strategies most used to achieve these aims included “interaction”, “talk”, “dialogue”, “humour”, “chit-chat” and “anecdote”. Most academics also would call a role or otherwise greet students at the start of tutorials; and most introduced the tutorial topic. The tone they sought to achieve was largely “friendly”, “comfortable”, “supportive”, “trusting”. In creating this ambience academics tried to be inclusive and to help “everybody [feel] part of that group”, something that has been identified as very important to engagement (Markwell, 2007). Although large class sizes and teaching in multiple tutorials were recognised as impediments to getting to know students, most academics tried to get to know students’ names, and all tried to notice students: I am very sensitive about making sure that people are referred to so everybody feels as though they have been noticed and are part of the group. The academics worked hard to promote a sense of community in their classrooms which is one element that has been identified as important to engaging students (Phillips, 2005). Other strategies used to notice students included, for example, talking to them, asking them about their clinical practicum, asking international students about their countries of origin and about the health services there. These efforts to set a positive tone were borne out in the observational data, where the ambience of the tutorials was most often described as “high energy”, “cheerful”, “buzzing”, “comfortable”, “supportive”. The observations showed that classrooms where students are engaged are marked by “high energy”. Students are “alert”, “looking” at the academic or presenter, they are “taking notes”, they are “talking to one another”, and “asking questions”. The observer described the students in these classes as “cheerful”, “curious”, “eager to learn” and “comfortable”; there was often “laughter” in these classes. Students’ posture was described as “open” and “attentive”. They would “sit forward” in their seats, their eyes would “follow” the tutor and they would “talk to one another” in small groups. Their responses appear to fit well with Frederickson’, 2001 broaden and build theory that a positive atmosphere is conducive to learning. However, it was not just students who were observed as attentive, but academics also. They were observed to talk to students frequently, to ask questions, to use humour, to respond positively and to be alert. Many of the academics exhibited what the observer referred to as “emotional intelligence”, and tended to speak, unlike the students, with authority, confidence and ease.
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319
A large part of creating a positive tone in tutorials was not simply helping students feel comfortable, but managing their actual and potential discomfort. The academics recognised that there was material that had the potential to distress students, while speaking in a large group could lead to “fear of exposing. themselves” and “stage fright”. Academics tried to be alert for these circumstances and sought not to “put students down”, “embarrass” them or “belittle” them: So even if they come up with something that is way off beam I provide another piece of information and sort of say: “in this setting that would be a fantastic answer or something to consider, however, looking at these facts I wonder if we might look at it a little more differently or I wonder if we might consider this.” The desire to create a positive atmosphere either through positive actions or limiting negative ones, was offset by an awareness that student discomfort was unavoidable and sometimes necessary in order for learning to occur. The academics acknowledged the students were “adult learners” and it was up to them to do the learning. Consequently, academics were observed to question students directly about their preparation for class, to express displeasure with students’ failure to prepare, and, uncomfortably perhaps for most students, to challenge their ideas and seek further clarification about statements they made. The academics agreed that engaging students was “hard work” and they sometimes had to “struggle to get student involvement”. In the focus groups and interviews academics reported strategies such as the identification of individual students, not providing immediate answers to questions, “applying pressure” through silence while waiting for a response and calling on students by name. In contrast to students engaging through a proactive approach, this secondary view of engagement e ‘engagement as struggle’ e is addressed in the second theme. Theme 2: engagement as struggle The six academics participating in this study desired an “equal relationship” with students. They also believed that both they and the students had some power to influence the “dynamics” of tutorials and that neither party had ultimate power. Academics believed their power was derived from superior knowledge, the ability to praise or punish and to award marks. Students meanwhile, could simply not attend tutorials, be passive, talk about things other than tutorial topics, or respond to text messages. There was a general reluctance among the academics to acknowledge that the way in which they were positioned as lecturers in relation to students constrained both their behaviour and that of the students (Mann, 2001). However, that aside, there was also a reluctance to recognise the power that inhered in their ‘insider’ position and the possibility that student behaviour might be explained as indicative of the ‘outsider’ (Mann, 2001). Student behaviour clearly affected all academics, and most considered their own performance within tutorials as dependent, in part, on the responsiveness of students: “if I am not getting anything from the students, I back off”. Contrary to this view another academic saw it as the time when “I need to work my hardest”. Academics disagreed as to whether they could or should control students’ responses, whether they could motivate students, whether students should attend and to what extent students should participate in tutorials. These differences among the academics reflect differences reported in the literature about the proper role of academics (Van Blerkom, 2001). However, they also reflect differences in understanding engagement (Zyngier, 2007). Although all agreed that engagement was involvement, they differed in terms of what might ignite it; whether it was a quality that inhered in the students or themselves as teachers.
317
The focus group discussions were the strongest indicator of this secondary view of engagement: that of struggle or conflict. At some point, most academics felt themselves to be fighting with some students to get them to attend the tutorial in the first place and then to manage their participation once there. In these cases, some academics appeared to demonise students and perceived them as ‘the enemy’ (Zyngier, 2007). At least one academic questioned whether academics should bother to drive tutorial attendance. Although the attendance at tutorials was higher than our initial impressions had often led us to believe, few classes had full attendance every week: approximately 25 per cent of students regularly did not attend, a finding strongly borne out in the AUSSE (ACER, 2010). Gump (2004) found that the most common motivator for student attendance at tertiary classes was ‘interest’, while a number of other researchers are reported to have found “boring” classes a reason for student non-attendance (Van Blerkom, 2001). Although it might be assumed that nursing students would find nursing inherently interesting, they might not find all subjects within the course interesting. It is also possible that a sizeable number of students ‘drifted’ into nursing (Mann, 2001) while some claim students are now more extrinsically motivated than has been the case in past decades (D’Aloisio, 2006). There is certainly evidence that extrinsic rewards do increase attendance (Van Blerkom, 2001), but not necessarily engagement. They may even promote alienation (Mann, 2001). The range of strategies used by the academics to develop interest in their subjects included explaining the “reasons for studying” the subject, making “expectations” explicit, painting the “big picture”, and “linking” the subject to other subjects or experiences. The only extrinsic motivators of note used during the observed tutorials were subject assessment items occurring for several students during select tutorials. As such, these motivators applied only to those students who were being directly assessed for marks within the tutorial (while subject assessments were run across the semester for different students each week, students assessed during tutorial observations made up a small minority). There was little indication that these extrinsic motivators were effective e students were certainly more likely to attend if receiving a mark, but they did not appear more likely to engage, a common finding among tertiary students (Romer, 1993; St. Clair, 1999). While five of the study six subjects were compulsory, student behaviour as recorded by the observer pointed to their interest in most topics. Some academics struggled under certain circumstances to engage their students. Managing students’ tutorial participation involved dealing with a diverse range of behaviours that extended from trying to overcome passivity, to challenging erroneous ideas, to quieting students who talked too much or otherwise monopolised interactions, and to encouraging questions. While the interview data emphasised academics’ desire for mutuality and sharing, the focus group data clearly revealed academics’ willingness to use strategies for pulling students into line when they felt students were not engaged. Observational data provided clues about the times when students were more likely to disengage. Students’ lack of engagement was signalled by fidgeting, yawns, looking down or around rather than at the speaker, slumped posture, sitting back in the chairs, and saying nothing. These behaviours were most noticeable in student-led discussions, but also when academics dominated. Such behaviours, where students simply adjust to the conditions they find themselves in, might, as Zyngier (2007) suggests, represent a self-protective, negative response to unequal power relations. Academics sometimes felt they had to struggle with students for whom English was a second language to check their understanding: “they should be doing more talking to make sure they are understanding”. However, it was noted that their attendance, in the
318
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319
sense of coming to every tutorial was strong. In all tutorials, the observational data noted that although many of them tended not to talk, their body language indicated attention to what the academic was saying. Furthermore, final subject grades attained by students for whom English was a second language appear to mirror results attained by the domestic students e while spreading from fail to high distinction the majority fell somewhere in the middle. Given these results, the academics’ concern for the English as a second language group may be unfounded. It would appear a student’s understanding cannot be assumed from their facility with the language of instruction. Conclusion In this qualitative study, five nurse academics were observed conducting tutorials. A sixth academic joined this group for discussion to address: what constituted student engagement; whose responsibility it was to engage students; and how best to engage students. Originally driven by the authors’ dismay at the limited tutorial preparation undertaken by students and low tutorial attendance rates, this study identified substantial tutorial attendance and some positive teaching strategies to engage students in the classroom. However, it became clear over the course of the study that no matter how desirable high attendance might be, this on its own did not signal engagement (Rodgers, 2002). The academic staff who participated in this research had tried various methods for improving student attendance and participation and the observational data suggested that they make an effort to engage students: they were always on time for their classes and prepared (Sleigh and Ritzer, 2002; Zsohar and Smith, 2006). Despite large tutorial numbers, they mostly managed to avoid dominating the discussion and delivering mini lectures (Biggs, 2003); they attempted to take notice of all students, and included small group activities within tutorials (Chapple, 1998). The findings from this small study while not ground-breaking, serve to re-emphasise that it is worthwhile investing time and enthusiasm into teaching and that face-to-face teaching still has value. Additionally it was also seen that to engage students, the academics must also engage. The intriguing finding from this study was the amount of time and effort academics put into creating a positive emotional environment. On their own, the attempts to induce a positive classroom atmosphere would not be sufficient to promote learning, but they are probably necessary. Although not articulated by the academics, there is evidence to support the value of positive emotions, such as interest and enthusiasm in promoting more flexible and open thinking (Ainley, 2004; Frederickson, 2001). Academics sought interest and involvement from students, and also tried to limit, if not the occurrence, at least the impact, of negative feelings like worry. However, they also recognised that sometimes a certain amount of discomfort was necessary to provoke interest and learning. The findings from this small study must be interpreted with caution. While all data sources tended to confirm one another, the emphasis in each was different. All data sources pointed to the effectiveness of setting a positive tone and making an effort. However, perhaps the real value of this study was its influence on and beyond those academics who participated. This research project served to promote a change in the QUT School of Nursing and Midwifery culture where engaging students is seen as worthwhile effort. Subsequent to this study, the authors formed a community of practice that continues to meet on a regular basis to critically discuss learning and teaching; this group has grown to include other academics. This community of practice has been identified by those involved as contributing to their ability to better engage their students.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queensland University of Technology for financial support for this study.
References Ainley, M., 2004. What Do We Know about Student Motivation and Engagement? Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne. Nov 29eDec 2. Astin, A.W., 1999. Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development 40 (5), 518e529. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), 2010. Doing More for Learning: Enhancing Engagement and Outcomes. Australasian Survey of Student Engagement 2009. Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell. http://ausse.acer.edu.au/images/docs/AUSSE_2009_Student_Engagement_ Report.pdf. Biggs, J., 2003. Teaching for Quality Learning at University, second ed.. Open University Press, Maidenhead. Chapple, S., 1998. How do you foster enthusiasm and participation in tutorials particularly by international students?. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February In: Black, B., Stanley, N. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times 61e65. UWA, Perth. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1998/chapple.html Retrieved 10th June 2008, from. Chickering, A.W., 2006. Every Student Can Learn If, About Campus MayeJune, pp. 9e15. Chickering, A.W., Gamson, Z.F., 1987. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3e7. March. Coates, H., 2006. Student Engagement in Campus-Based and Online Education: University Connections. Routledge, London. D’Aloisio, A., 2006. Motivating students through awareness of the natural correlation between college learning and corporate work settings. College Teaching Spring 54 (2), 225e229. Davis, T., Murrell, P., 1993. A structural model of perceived academic, personal, and vocational gains related to college student responsibility. Research in Higher Education 34, 267e289. Exley, K., Dennick, R., 2004. Small Group Teaching: Tutorials, Seminars and Beyond. Routledge Falmer, London. Frederickson, B.L., 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden and build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56 (3), 218e226. Gump, S.E., 2004. Keep students coming by keeping them interested: motivators for class attendance. College Student Journal 38 (1), 157e161. Krause, K., 2005. Understanding and Promoting Student Engagement in University Learning Communities. Centre for the Study of Higher Education. http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/Stud_eng.pdf Retrieved 10th June 2008, from. Krause, K.L., Coates, H., 2008. Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (5), 493e505. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., 2005. Assessing Conditions to Enhance Educational Effectiveness: The Inventory for Student Engagement and Success. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Laird, T.F.N., Smallwood, R.N., Niskodé-Dossett, A.S., Garver, A.K., 2009. Effectively involving faculty in the assessment of student engagement. New Directions for Institutional Research 141, 71e81. Spring. Laurillard, D.M., 2002. Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. Routledge, London. Mann, S.J., 2001. Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education 26 (1), 7e19. Markwell, D., 2007. The Challenge of Student Engagement. Keynote Address: Teaching and Learning Forum 2007. 30e31 January. Retrieved 29th April from. University of Western Australia, Perth. http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/CATLyst/ current/1/don_markwell. National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008. Promoting Engagement for all Students: The Imperative to Look Within. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Bloomington. http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results/ index.cfm. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., 2005. How College Affects Students, vol. 2. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Phillips, R., 2005. Challenging the primacy of lectures: the dissonance between theory and practice in universityteaching. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 2 (1), 1e12. Retrieved 28th January 2009 from. http://jutlp. uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i01/phillips003.html. Rodgers, J., 2002. Encouraging tutorial attendance at university did not improve performance. Australian Economic Papers 41 (3), 255e266. Romer, D., 1993. Do students go to class? Should they? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (3), 167e174 (1986e1998). Sleigh, M., Ritzer, D., 2002. Student versus faculty perceptions of missing class. Teaching of Psychology 29 (1), 53e56.
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319 Srivastava, P., Hopwood, N., 2009. A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8 (1), 76e84. St. Clair, K.L., 1999. A case against compulsory class attendance policies in higher education. Innovative Higher Education 23 (3), 171e180. Van Blerkom, M.L., 2001. Class attendance in undergraduate courses. The Journal of Psychology 126 (5), 487e494.
319
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, fourth ed.. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Zsohar, H., Smith, J.A., 2006. Top ten list of don’ts in classroom teaching. Nurse Educator 31 (4), 144e146. Zyngier, D., 2007. Listening to teacherselistening to students: substantive conversations about resistance, empowerment and engagement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 13 (4), 327e347.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education in Practice journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nepr
Engaging undergraduate nursing students in face-to-face tutorials Ruth L. Elder*, Peter A. Lewis 1, Carol A. Windsor 2, Margaret Wheeler 3, Elizabeth Forster 4, Joanne Foster 5, Helen Chapman Queensland University of Technology, Australia
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Accepted 2 February 2011
Chronic nursing shortages have placed increasing pressure on many nursing schools to recruit greater numbers of students with the consequence of larger class sizes. Larger class sizes have the potential to lead to student disengagement. This paper describes a case study that examined the strategies used by a group of nursing lecturers to engage students and to overcome passivity in a Bachelor of Nursing programme. A non-participant observer attended 20 tutorials to observe five academics deliver four tutorials each. Academics were interviewed both individually and as a group following the completion of all tutorial observations. All observations, field notes, interviews and focus groups were coded separately and major themes identified. From this analysis two broad categories emerged: getting students involved; and engagement as a struggle. Academics used a wide variety of techniques to interest and involve students. Additionally, academics desired an equal relationship with students. They believed that both they and the students had some power to influence the dynamics of tutorials and that neither party had ultimate power. The findings of this study serve to re-emphasise past literature which suggests that to engage students, the academics must also engage. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Engagement Involvement Tutorials
Introduction The pressures of a large, diverse student body have affected many nursing schools in Australia. Critical nursing shortages have often led to a focus on recruitment, which in turn has led to many universities enrolling large numbers of nursing students. Faculty often struggles to create a satisfying and productive learning environment under these circumstances. Driving the research reported in this paper were observed differences in student preparation and attendance at tutorials across different subjects within an undergraduate nursing degree. While some of these differences could be explained by the impact of clinical practicum, practicum could not explain all of them. The purpose of this research was to improve the authors’ understanding of student engagement within
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ617 3138 3836; fax: þ617 3138 3814. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.L. Elder), [email protected] (P.A. Lewis), [email protected] (C.A. Windsor), [email protected] (M. Wheeler), [email protected] (E. Forster), [email protected] (J. Foster), h.chapman@qut. edu.au (H. Chapman). 1 Tel.: þ617 3138 3834. 2 Tel.: þ617 3138 3837. 3 Tel.: þ617 3138 9757. 4 Tel.: þ617 3138 5948. 5 Tel.: þ617 3138 3876. 1471-5953/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2011.02.003
face-to-face tutorials in an undergraduate, internally delivered Bachelor of Nursing course. Literature review A number of changes in the higher education sector have served to increase the diversity of tertiary student groups. Changes driving student diversity at university include: the greater number of university enrolments; the internationalisation of the higher education sector; and a larger proportion of students who derive from historically underrepresented groups such as women, Indigenous students, and students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Many of the students who belong to the latter two groups are also educationally disadvantaged, while many international students have English as a second language. As such, the past decade has seen heightened, worldwide interest in the processes of student engagement at university (Astin, 1999; Chickering, 2006; Krause, 2005; Krause and Coates, 2008; Kuh et al., 2005; Markwell, 2007). Student engagement, defined as involvement with the activities likely to produce high quality learning outcomes (ACER, 2010; Coates, 2006), is widely recognised as important to student success at university (Krause and Coates, 2008; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). However, engaging a diverse range of students is very challenging. Small classes and frequent studentestaff interaction are widely recognised as important to
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319
engaging students (Astin, 1999; Krause and Coates, 2008) and as contributing to active learning (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). Both of these characteristics are often missing in large schools of nursing. So it is not unusual to hear nursing academics complain that students are not motivated to attend and to participate, an impression borne out by the 2009 Australian University Survey of Student Engagement (ACER, 2010) and the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2008) conducted in the USA. In Australia and New Zealand the students were found to spend only 8 h preparing for classes, while the NSSE found one in five students did not prepare for classes. D’Aloisio (2006) for example, claims that contemporary students are motivated by external rewards, such as better jobs and pay and not by the desire for knowledge on its own, suggesting that it is up to teachers to structure learning situations to motivate students (Ainley, 2004). This renewed interest in student engagement sits somewhat uncomfortably beside other social forces that appear to be pushing in the opposite direction. While much of the focus has been on what the institution does to induce students to engage with their studies, less attention has been paid recently to the role of faculty in promoting student engagement in the classroom, even though interaction between faculty and students has been identified as critical to engaging students (Astin, 1999; Chickering and Gamson, 1987; Laird et al., 2009; Coates, 2006). Davis and Murrell (1993) and more recently, Krause and Coates (2008) argue that staff is important to creating the conditions that encourage students to become involved. Teacher approachability is one of nine qualities used to conceptualise student engagement on the AUSSE (Coates, 2006).Gump (2004) found that an interesting teacher was one of the most common reasons students gave for attending tertiary classes. Furthermore, as Laird and her group argue, it is faculty who directly observes students and can report students’ preferences for various teaching and learning strategies. Astin, one of the early pioneers of the concept of student involvement, considered involvement to be an outcome, in part, of the effort made by faculty. In response to a School of Nursing and Midwifery initiative aimed at encouraging research into teaching and learning, a group of six, full-time members of the academic staff successfully applied for funding for this project. The funding paid for a research assistant who was also an experienced academic.
315
undergraduate Bachelor of Nursing students. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from QUT’s Ethics Committee. The staff involved in this study were all full-time members of the QUT academic staff. All were experienced lecturers, having taught for more than ten years. With the exception of one academic, all taught core nursing theory subjects with a focus on the provision of nursing care in a variety of health settings. Student attendance at classes was not mandatory for any subject. Five of the six subjects involved in this study were core units while one was an elective. The tutorials were designed to accommodate 20e30 students. Academics involved in this study delivered between six and nine tutorials most weeks across the semester. Large tutorial size had been a concern of many academic staff in terms of its effect on interaction and the fact students were often anonymous to their teachers and unable to interact frequently with them. Because the study was focused on what academic staff did in tutorials, the principal method of data collection was non-participant observation. A research assistant who was also an experienced academic was employed to take the role of a non-participant observer. One academic was not observed, because she was not teaching in the semester the study was undertaken. Four tutorials in each of the five subjects were observed, giving a total of 30 h of observations. These observations formed the context of the study. An initial protocol which recorded time, place, setting, length of observation, description of tutorial and reflective notes was developed and used. The observer kept a record of observations in the form of descriptive field notes. At the completion of the observation period, academic staff were each interviewed individually for approximately 1 h by the research assistant. As a follow up to this, two, 1 h focus groups of all participating academic staff members were conducted. Both the interviews and the focus groups, which were conducted as semiformal conversations, enabled the academic staff to explore in greater depth their perceptions about student engagement and the meanings they attributed to their actions and those of the students. The focus groups were transcribed live by a stenographer, while the interviews were audio-taped and later transcribed. The data were analysed by intensively reading through the field notes, observations, transcripts of interviews and focus groups multiple times and interrogated using the following questions (Srivastava and Hopwood, 2009):
Research design The study was conducted in second semester 2008 as an embedded, single case with multiple units of analysis (Yin, 2009). It was designed to provide the participants with practical knowledge about their specific context, and to help the authors learn more about themselves and their students. The intermediate units of analysis were tutorial classes. Tutorials were identified as important sites for the engagement of students in learning because they provide opportunities not available through other media. Tutorials supplement lectures and textbooks and provide a variety of teaching and learning activities which can better cater for students’ diverse learning styles (Biggs, 2003). They also afford opportunities to provide and receive feedback which is predominantly formative, and to explore in greater depth the knowledge within a particular subject (Phillips, 2005). Tutorials are perceived also to be a less threatening and more personal environment. Students have the opportunity to better know their peers while tutors can better know their students (Exley and Dennick, 2004). Furthermore, as Markwell (2007) notes, engagement in different contexts may have different appearances. The research took place in the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) School of Nursing and Midwifery. This large, metropolitan university in Brisbane, Australia has approximately 2400
1. What does the interview data reveal about engagement in tutorials? 2. What does the focus group data reveal about engagement in tutorials? 3. What does the observational data reveal about engagement in tutorials? 4. What is it I want to know? Do tutors engage students? What do tutors do in tutorials to engage students? 5. What is the dialectical relationship between what the data are telling me and what I want to know? Are there any gaps between what is said/done in the three sources of data? All observations, field notes, interviews and focus groups were coded separately and major themes identified. As the coding proceeded, memos were made when gaps were identified. From this analysis two broad categories emerged: getting students involved and engagement as struggle. What follows is a description of each. Words used by the observer or participants are italicised. Theme 1: getting students involved The data demonstrated the extent to which academics go to make their tutorials stimulating and the wide variety of techniques
316
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319
they use to interest and involve students. Engagement emerged not simply as a response to what academics do, but an outcome, as Astin (1999) argues of the interaction among students, academics, materials, and techniques. The interview data pointed most strongly to academics’ understanding of engagement as student involvement, which accorded strongly with recent definitions (ACER, 2010; Astin, 1999; Krause and Coates, 2008). The academics considered themselves as bearing the most responsibility for attracting students into their tutorials, making them interesting and stimulating, and they used various strategies to entice students. None used compulsory attendance as a means of getting students to come; instead they sought to get students to come to class by “[giving] them a personal stake.”; by “[giving] them reasons to come to class”. All academics strived to help students who did attend tutorials to concentrate on the tutorial activities. There was no consensus, however, as to whether students should attend all tutorials, a disagreement reflected in the literature (see for example, Romer, 1993; St. Clair, 1999). While it was hoped students would attend all tutorials some academics realised that there were opportunity costs associated with attendance (Romer, 1993). They recognised that many students had numerous other commitments such as “work and family” which they may prioritise ahead of tutorial attendance. Academics believed that students attending tutorials needed to take responsibility for their own learning. They believed there had to be a shift in responsibility; that it was more of a “2-way street” and required “an element of interest on the part of both parties”. These findings are interesting in the light of findings from the NSSE (2008) that found many students were spending only about half as much time preparing for their classes as academics thought they should. This report concluded that many students were not upholding their end of the educational bargain. The significance of “mutuality” and “sharing” for the academics was that it provided them with feedback about students’ level of understanding, their interest in the material, and making tutorials more interesting for them. Academics used a wide a variety of techniques to try to interest students in the tutorial. Case studies and short, clinically-based scenarios were among the most used materials; one of the most common techniques was the use of small groups. The observational data demonstrated most tutorials to contain 16e22 students and that within this size range, most would be broken up into four or five smaller sub-groups. Academics’ interventions in the forms of moving among small groups and/or joining with them, asking and responding to questions; and reinforcing and expanding on student responses were all effective in holding students’ interest. Less effective were strategies where either the academic or students dominated. Anyone holding the floor for longer than 10 min, whether the academic or a group of students in a student-led discussion, tended to reduce the level of energy within the tutorial. Questioning was an instructional technique used by all academics. However, it was not the act of asking questions that seemed to matter, but rather the manner in which academics were able to draw students in. The observational data pointed to the wide use of provocative (Zsohar and Smith, 2006) and Socratic questioning techniques. The types of questions most likely to spark student interest were questions built on what they already knew. They were conducted as conversations (Laurillard, 2002) that drew on lectures, laboratory and clinical practicums as well as their life experiences: “Do you know anyone who has.?” “What are you thinking about.?” “What question would you really like to ask of.?” “Can you give an example of.?” “How would you handle this situation?” “What else would you like to know?” Their questioning strategies appeared heavily focused on getting students to listen, and checking if they had heard and understood. The interviews and
focus groups provided information about how the academics perceived their own questioning methods. The most common strategy was to try to pull on something they [the student] have done before. whether that was their own personal experiences, experiences from clinical practicum or what they had learnt in other subjects. Academics would also try to give students confidence by asking easy, teaser questions first, that they are likely to know the answer to. Academics also told stories and anecdotes from their own clinical or personal experiences; and used visual materials such as images, pictures and short excerpts from YouTube or other videos. Identified previously as important to encouraging learning (Kuh et al., 2005), the observational data noted the physical environment within which tutorials occurred. Academics, however, tended to pay little attention to the environment in either their interviews or the focus groups e they appeared to be much more attuned to the emotional climate of the tutorial. The academics were very much focused on the ambience and tone of their tutorials and they made considerable effort to make them “fun”, “enjoyable”, “relaxed” or “informal”. None however, specifically stated that they set out to “inspire” students (Ainley, 2004). The academics all desired an equal relationship with students and there is a strong egalitarian ethic in the school where students use the academics first names. The strategies most used to achieve these aims included “interaction”, “talk”, “dialogue”, “humour”, “chit-chat” and “anecdote”. Most academics also would call a role or otherwise greet students at the start of tutorials; and most introduced the tutorial topic. The tone they sought to achieve was largely “friendly”, “comfortable”, “supportive”, “trusting”. In creating this ambience academics tried to be inclusive and to help “everybody [feel] part of that group”, something that has been identified as very important to engagement (Markwell, 2007). Although large class sizes and teaching in multiple tutorials were recognised as impediments to getting to know students, most academics tried to get to know students’ names, and all tried to notice students: I am very sensitive about making sure that people are referred to so everybody feels as though they have been noticed and are part of the group. The academics worked hard to promote a sense of community in their classrooms which is one element that has been identified as important to engaging students (Phillips, 2005). Other strategies used to notice students included, for example, talking to them, asking them about their clinical practicum, asking international students about their countries of origin and about the health services there. These efforts to set a positive tone were borne out in the observational data, where the ambience of the tutorials was most often described as “high energy”, “cheerful”, “buzzing”, “comfortable”, “supportive”. The observations showed that classrooms where students are engaged are marked by “high energy”. Students are “alert”, “looking” at the academic or presenter, they are “taking notes”, they are “talking to one another”, and “asking questions”. The observer described the students in these classes as “cheerful”, “curious”, “eager to learn” and “comfortable”; there was often “laughter” in these classes. Students’ posture was described as “open” and “attentive”. They would “sit forward” in their seats, their eyes would “follow” the tutor and they would “talk to one another” in small groups. Their responses appear to fit well with Frederickson’, 2001 broaden and build theory that a positive atmosphere is conducive to learning. However, it was not just students who were observed as attentive, but academics also. They were observed to talk to students frequently, to ask questions, to use humour, to respond positively and to be alert. Many of the academics exhibited what the observer referred to as “emotional intelligence”, and tended to speak, unlike the students, with authority, confidence and ease.
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319
A large part of creating a positive tone in tutorials was not simply helping students feel comfortable, but managing their actual and potential discomfort. The academics recognised that there was material that had the potential to distress students, while speaking in a large group could lead to “fear of exposing. themselves” and “stage fright”. Academics tried to be alert for these circumstances and sought not to “put students down”, “embarrass” them or “belittle” them: So even if they come up with something that is way off beam I provide another piece of information and sort of say: “in this setting that would be a fantastic answer or something to consider, however, looking at these facts I wonder if we might look at it a little more differently or I wonder if we might consider this.” The desire to create a positive atmosphere either through positive actions or limiting negative ones, was offset by an awareness that student discomfort was unavoidable and sometimes necessary in order for learning to occur. The academics acknowledged the students were “adult learners” and it was up to them to do the learning. Consequently, academics were observed to question students directly about their preparation for class, to express displeasure with students’ failure to prepare, and, uncomfortably perhaps for most students, to challenge their ideas and seek further clarification about statements they made. The academics agreed that engaging students was “hard work” and they sometimes had to “struggle to get student involvement”. In the focus groups and interviews academics reported strategies such as the identification of individual students, not providing immediate answers to questions, “applying pressure” through silence while waiting for a response and calling on students by name. In contrast to students engaging through a proactive approach, this secondary view of engagement e ‘engagement as struggle’ e is addressed in the second theme. Theme 2: engagement as struggle The six academics participating in this study desired an “equal relationship” with students. They also believed that both they and the students had some power to influence the “dynamics” of tutorials and that neither party had ultimate power. Academics believed their power was derived from superior knowledge, the ability to praise or punish and to award marks. Students meanwhile, could simply not attend tutorials, be passive, talk about things other than tutorial topics, or respond to text messages. There was a general reluctance among the academics to acknowledge that the way in which they were positioned as lecturers in relation to students constrained both their behaviour and that of the students (Mann, 2001). However, that aside, there was also a reluctance to recognise the power that inhered in their ‘insider’ position and the possibility that student behaviour might be explained as indicative of the ‘outsider’ (Mann, 2001). Student behaviour clearly affected all academics, and most considered their own performance within tutorials as dependent, in part, on the responsiveness of students: “if I am not getting anything from the students, I back off”. Contrary to this view another academic saw it as the time when “I need to work my hardest”. Academics disagreed as to whether they could or should control students’ responses, whether they could motivate students, whether students should attend and to what extent students should participate in tutorials. These differences among the academics reflect differences reported in the literature about the proper role of academics (Van Blerkom, 2001). However, they also reflect differences in understanding engagement (Zyngier, 2007). Although all agreed that engagement was involvement, they differed in terms of what might ignite it; whether it was a quality that inhered in the students or themselves as teachers.
317
The focus group discussions were the strongest indicator of this secondary view of engagement: that of struggle or conflict. At some point, most academics felt themselves to be fighting with some students to get them to attend the tutorial in the first place and then to manage their participation once there. In these cases, some academics appeared to demonise students and perceived them as ‘the enemy’ (Zyngier, 2007). At least one academic questioned whether academics should bother to drive tutorial attendance. Although the attendance at tutorials was higher than our initial impressions had often led us to believe, few classes had full attendance every week: approximately 25 per cent of students regularly did not attend, a finding strongly borne out in the AUSSE (ACER, 2010). Gump (2004) found that the most common motivator for student attendance at tertiary classes was ‘interest’, while a number of other researchers are reported to have found “boring” classes a reason for student non-attendance (Van Blerkom, 2001). Although it might be assumed that nursing students would find nursing inherently interesting, they might not find all subjects within the course interesting. It is also possible that a sizeable number of students ‘drifted’ into nursing (Mann, 2001) while some claim students are now more extrinsically motivated than has been the case in past decades (D’Aloisio, 2006). There is certainly evidence that extrinsic rewards do increase attendance (Van Blerkom, 2001), but not necessarily engagement. They may even promote alienation (Mann, 2001). The range of strategies used by the academics to develop interest in their subjects included explaining the “reasons for studying” the subject, making “expectations” explicit, painting the “big picture”, and “linking” the subject to other subjects or experiences. The only extrinsic motivators of note used during the observed tutorials were subject assessment items occurring for several students during select tutorials. As such, these motivators applied only to those students who were being directly assessed for marks within the tutorial (while subject assessments were run across the semester for different students each week, students assessed during tutorial observations made up a small minority). There was little indication that these extrinsic motivators were effective e students were certainly more likely to attend if receiving a mark, but they did not appear more likely to engage, a common finding among tertiary students (Romer, 1993; St. Clair, 1999). While five of the study six subjects were compulsory, student behaviour as recorded by the observer pointed to their interest in most topics. Some academics struggled under certain circumstances to engage their students. Managing students’ tutorial participation involved dealing with a diverse range of behaviours that extended from trying to overcome passivity, to challenging erroneous ideas, to quieting students who talked too much or otherwise monopolised interactions, and to encouraging questions. While the interview data emphasised academics’ desire for mutuality and sharing, the focus group data clearly revealed academics’ willingness to use strategies for pulling students into line when they felt students were not engaged. Observational data provided clues about the times when students were more likely to disengage. Students’ lack of engagement was signalled by fidgeting, yawns, looking down or around rather than at the speaker, slumped posture, sitting back in the chairs, and saying nothing. These behaviours were most noticeable in student-led discussions, but also when academics dominated. Such behaviours, where students simply adjust to the conditions they find themselves in, might, as Zyngier (2007) suggests, represent a self-protective, negative response to unequal power relations. Academics sometimes felt they had to struggle with students for whom English was a second language to check their understanding: “they should be doing more talking to make sure they are understanding”. However, it was noted that their attendance, in the
318
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319
sense of coming to every tutorial was strong. In all tutorials, the observational data noted that although many of them tended not to talk, their body language indicated attention to what the academic was saying. Furthermore, final subject grades attained by students for whom English was a second language appear to mirror results attained by the domestic students e while spreading from fail to high distinction the majority fell somewhere in the middle. Given these results, the academics’ concern for the English as a second language group may be unfounded. It would appear a student’s understanding cannot be assumed from their facility with the language of instruction. Conclusion In this qualitative study, five nurse academics were observed conducting tutorials. A sixth academic joined this group for discussion to address: what constituted student engagement; whose responsibility it was to engage students; and how best to engage students. Originally driven by the authors’ dismay at the limited tutorial preparation undertaken by students and low tutorial attendance rates, this study identified substantial tutorial attendance and some positive teaching strategies to engage students in the classroom. However, it became clear over the course of the study that no matter how desirable high attendance might be, this on its own did not signal engagement (Rodgers, 2002). The academic staff who participated in this research had tried various methods for improving student attendance and participation and the observational data suggested that they make an effort to engage students: they were always on time for their classes and prepared (Sleigh and Ritzer, 2002; Zsohar and Smith, 2006). Despite large tutorial numbers, they mostly managed to avoid dominating the discussion and delivering mini lectures (Biggs, 2003); they attempted to take notice of all students, and included small group activities within tutorials (Chapple, 1998). The findings from this small study while not ground-breaking, serve to re-emphasise that it is worthwhile investing time and enthusiasm into teaching and that face-to-face teaching still has value. Additionally it was also seen that to engage students, the academics must also engage. The intriguing finding from this study was the amount of time and effort academics put into creating a positive emotional environment. On their own, the attempts to induce a positive classroom atmosphere would not be sufficient to promote learning, but they are probably necessary. Although not articulated by the academics, there is evidence to support the value of positive emotions, such as interest and enthusiasm in promoting more flexible and open thinking (Ainley, 2004; Frederickson, 2001). Academics sought interest and involvement from students, and also tried to limit, if not the occurrence, at least the impact, of negative feelings like worry. However, they also recognised that sometimes a certain amount of discomfort was necessary to provoke interest and learning. The findings from this small study must be interpreted with caution. While all data sources tended to confirm one another, the emphasis in each was different. All data sources pointed to the effectiveness of setting a positive tone and making an effort. However, perhaps the real value of this study was its influence on and beyond those academics who participated. This research project served to promote a change in the QUT School of Nursing and Midwifery culture where engaging students is seen as worthwhile effort. Subsequent to this study, the authors formed a community of practice that continues to meet on a regular basis to critically discuss learning and teaching; this group has grown to include other academics. This community of practice has been identified by those involved as contributing to their ability to better engage their students.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queensland University of Technology for financial support for this study.
References Ainley, M., 2004. What Do We Know about Student Motivation and Engagement? Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne. Nov 29eDec 2. Astin, A.W., 1999. Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development 40 (5), 518e529. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), 2010. Doing More for Learning: Enhancing Engagement and Outcomes. Australasian Survey of Student Engagement 2009. Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell. http://ausse.acer.edu.au/images/docs/AUSSE_2009_Student_Engagement_ Report.pdf. Biggs, J., 2003. Teaching for Quality Learning at University, second ed.. Open University Press, Maidenhead. Chapple, S., 1998. How do you foster enthusiasm and participation in tutorials particularly by international students?. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February In: Black, B., Stanley, N. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times 61e65. UWA, Perth. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1998/chapple.html Retrieved 10th June 2008, from. Chickering, A.W., 2006. Every Student Can Learn If, About Campus MayeJune, pp. 9e15. Chickering, A.W., Gamson, Z.F., 1987. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3e7. March. Coates, H., 2006. Student Engagement in Campus-Based and Online Education: University Connections. Routledge, London. D’Aloisio, A., 2006. Motivating students through awareness of the natural correlation between college learning and corporate work settings. College Teaching Spring 54 (2), 225e229. Davis, T., Murrell, P., 1993. A structural model of perceived academic, personal, and vocational gains related to college student responsibility. Research in Higher Education 34, 267e289. Exley, K., Dennick, R., 2004. Small Group Teaching: Tutorials, Seminars and Beyond. Routledge Falmer, London. Frederickson, B.L., 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden and build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56 (3), 218e226. Gump, S.E., 2004. Keep students coming by keeping them interested: motivators for class attendance. College Student Journal 38 (1), 157e161. Krause, K., 2005. Understanding and Promoting Student Engagement in University Learning Communities. Centre for the Study of Higher Education. http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/Stud_eng.pdf Retrieved 10th June 2008, from. Krause, K.L., Coates, H., 2008. Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (5), 493e505. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., 2005. Assessing Conditions to Enhance Educational Effectiveness: The Inventory for Student Engagement and Success. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Laird, T.F.N., Smallwood, R.N., Niskodé-Dossett, A.S., Garver, A.K., 2009. Effectively involving faculty in the assessment of student engagement. New Directions for Institutional Research 141, 71e81. Spring. Laurillard, D.M., 2002. Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. Routledge, London. Mann, S.J., 2001. Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education 26 (1), 7e19. Markwell, D., 2007. The Challenge of Student Engagement. Keynote Address: Teaching and Learning Forum 2007. 30e31 January. Retrieved 29th April from. University of Western Australia, Perth. http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/CATLyst/ current/1/don_markwell. National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008. Promoting Engagement for all Students: The Imperative to Look Within. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Bloomington. http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results/ index.cfm. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., 2005. How College Affects Students, vol. 2. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Phillips, R., 2005. Challenging the primacy of lectures: the dissonance between theory and practice in universityteaching. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 2 (1), 1e12. Retrieved 28th January 2009 from. http://jutlp. uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i01/phillips003.html. Rodgers, J., 2002. Encouraging tutorial attendance at university did not improve performance. Australian Economic Papers 41 (3), 255e266. Romer, D., 1993. Do students go to class? Should they? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (3), 167e174 (1986e1998). Sleigh, M., Ritzer, D., 2002. Student versus faculty perceptions of missing class. Teaching of Psychology 29 (1), 53e56.
R.L. Elder et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 314e319 Srivastava, P., Hopwood, N., 2009. A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8 (1), 76e84. St. Clair, K.L., 1999. A case against compulsory class attendance policies in higher education. Innovative Higher Education 23 (3), 171e180. Van Blerkom, M.L., 2001. Class attendance in undergraduate courses. The Journal of Psychology 126 (5), 487e494.
319
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, fourth ed.. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Zsohar, H., Smith, J.A., 2006. Top ten list of don’ts in classroom teaching. Nurse Educator 31 (4), 144e146. Zyngier, D., 2007. Listening to teacherselistening to students: substantive conversations about resistance, empowerment and engagement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 13 (4), 327e347.