psychology students’ experiences of peer tutoring at the london metropolitan university writing...
Post on 27-Dec-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Psychology students’ experiences of peer tutoring at the
London Metropolitan University Writing Centre
Savita Bakhshi, Kathy Harrington and Peter O’NeillLondon Metropolitan University
BackgroundInitiative of Write Now Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
(CETL).Collaborating institutions: Liverpool Hope University and Aston University.Aims of Write Now:
Enrich students' learning experiences through the development of innovative, evidence-based provision focused on writing for assessment.
Celebrate and promote student writing in the disciplines, enabling students to develop academic and disciplinary identities as empowered, confident writers.
5 years funding from Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE): 2005-2010.
2
Opened in October 2006, based in the Department of PsychologyStudent Writing Mentor Scheme Objectives:
1. Avoid institutional duplication (existing Learning Development Unit)2. Offer something innovative in context of UK writing support where peer
tutoring is very rare3. Evaluate a model of student-led writing support that might be
implemented in other Higher Education institutionsThe scheme is collaborative in approach and its purpose is to enable students
to become confident and competent academic writers in their disciplines. The scheme is open to all LMU students across different disciplines, including
psychology. Over 1300 tutorials were conducted with students from various disciplines in
the first year and a half of operation, and around 20% of students who used the Mentor Scheme were in Psychology.
London Met Writing Centre
3
Fundamental connection between writing and thinking.Reflective thought is public or social conversation internalised (Vygotsky,
1986):
“If thought is internalised public and social talk, then writing of all kinds is internalised social talk made public and social again. If thought is internalised conversation, then writing is internalised conversation re-externalised.” (Bruffee, 1984: 641)
It follows that engaging students in constructive conversation about their ideas and their writing is likely to lead to better thinking and therefore to better writing.
Undergraduate peer tutors have long been widespread in Writing Centres in North America, but there are only a few Writing Centres or dedicated writing support schemes in the UK, which adopt the North American peer tutoring approach.
Students helping students with writing: a rationale
5
The focus is on being: Collaborative, Non-directive, Non-hierarchical Not a content-oriented focus
For collaboration to be real, there must be an attempt to reduce as far as possible the hierarchies inherent in the university (cf. Lunsford, 1991).
As such trained undergraduate peer tutors likely to be ideal facilitators of collaborative learning in fellow students.
Collaborative peer tutorials in writing as an excellent means of getting students engaged in their writing – of cutting through doubts and getting them to actually do something.
“Tutoring in writing is … intervention in the composing process. Writers come to the writing centre sometime during the writing of something looking for help. Often, they don’t know what kind of help is available, practicable, or sensible…. They seem to think that tutoring in writing means either coming to know something new or getting something done to or for them. In fact, though, they need help doing something…” (North, 1982: 434)
Peer collaboration
6
“Doing away with study skills”• Real understanding of the complexities of disciplinary writing “can only be
achieved within the subject and through explanations, modelling and feedback by subject tutors” (Wingate, 2006: 463)
OUR HYPOTHESIS:• Students who are themselves engaged with coming to terms with the
complexities of their disciplinary discourse also have a role to play in helping other students
• Moreover, they are close enough to their peers to recognise the confusions that they are going through, confusions which may not be so apparent to a lecturer who has thoroughly internalised the epistemology of her or his discipline
• Collaborating – working together – might be even more effective for real understanding than “explanations, modelling and feedback”
Peer writing collaborators and Academic Literacies
7
What happens in a tutorial?“I walked into the tutorial full of half-ideas, and walked out of the tutorial with fully-formed, fully-structured ideas, a good plan in my head of how the assignment would be formed, and two sides of rough notes which included the majority of the things I included in my final draft!…I was able to discuss my ideas, basically verbalise them to the mentor, and by having to put them into words to tell someone, I also had to sort of explain them internally myself in a clear fashion, which I hadn't done up to that point. So I left the tutorial with a crystal clear idea of exactly how I would go about writing up this assignment, things and ideas I would include, and also places to look for more information and areas I needed to research more! I am really happy that I went; students are so lucky to have this service, and I definitely intend on using the writing centre for myself! ”
8
Is there a need for peer interaction in Psychology?
Some research conducted on peer interaction in Psychology: Peer e-mentoring (Hixenbaugh, Dewart, Drees and Williams, 2005)Critical thinking skills (Anderson and Soden, 2001)Learning methods (Rae and Baillie, 2005)Statistics (Helman and Horswill, 2002)Peer mentoring (Hill and Reddy, 2007)
Benefits for:StudentsMentorsLecturers
“I’ll be somebody to chat to and to ask questions. Somebody that’s on par with them and not a lecturer, somebody that’s been through it…”
(Hill and Reddy, 2007)9
We argue there is a need for peer mentoring in psychology because: Psychology is a writing-intensive science subject (i.e. essays,
scientific reports, dissertations, case studies, etc). Students may also need help with general writing (i.e. grammar,
punctuation, etc), as identified by Psychology lecturers (see Newman, 2007).
See quote (previous slide)Writing in an academically literate way according to the
expectations of the discipline (including use of APA style) is essential to doing well as a student in Psychology.
The focus is on being: Collaborative, Non-directive, Non-hierarchical
Peer mentoring in Psychology
10
The aims of this sessionThis session reports on undergraduate and postgraduate Psychology
student experiences of participating in the Student Writing Mentor Scheme and using the Writing Centre during the first year and a half of operation.
The evaluation will Assess the degree to which students felt that the Writing Mentors
and the Writing Centre provided an environment supportive of their own writing development,
Identify the key factors that shaped the students’ experiences of this new form of writing support provided by the University.
The evaluation will be based on data collected through an online questionnaire.
11
The aims of this session (cont…)
12
We will report our findings in relation to the following categories:
a. Motivations for using the Scheme b. Specific writing concerns, actual experiences, and post-tutorials
views of Schemec. Nature of relationship between student and Mentord. Students’ attitudes towards their own writing before and after
participating in the Scheme.
Our sampleGender distribution: Females (81%), Males (19%)Native languages other than English= 71% Studying a variety of different subjects, including
Psychology (26%) Art and Design (14%) IT, Media and Communications (10%) IR and Politics (7%)
Undergraduate (75%), postgraduate (21%)This sample is largely representative of the students who visited the
Writing Centre in 2006-07. This presentation will focus on Psychology students responses and
will compare their responses to the overall sample where appropriate.
13
a. Motivations for using the Scheme
14
Figure 1: Importance of factors influencing Psychology students' decisions to book their first tutorial (n= 15)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wantingencouragement to
help me staymotivated
Being able to talkabout my writing
with someone else
Wanting assurancethat I'm on the right
track
A lecturer'srecommendation
Very or fairly importantNeither important nor unimportantOnly a little important or not important at all
Being able to talk about their writing with someone else and wanting encouragement to stay motivated were the most important reasons for Psychology students for booking their first tutorial.
15
b. Specific writing concerns, actual experiences, and post-tutorials views of Scheme
Figure 2: Students' reasons for booking their first tutorial (n= 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Structure
Writing in an academic style
Content
Developing an argument
Spelling, punctuation and grammar
Addressing the question
Critical evaluation/analysis
Writing paragraphs
Using evidence
Subject- specific writing
Motivation to write
Referencing
Other
%
16
b. Specific writing concerns, actual experiences, and post-tutorials views of Scheme (cont…)
90%
10%
Figure 3: Degree to which Psychology students felt the reasons for booking their first tutorial were
addressed in that tutorial
Very or fairly well
Not sure
17
b. Specific writing concerns, actual experiences, and post-tutorials views of Scheme (cont…)
91%
7% 2%
Figure 4: Students' degree of overall satisfaction with the tutorials they have had (n= 67)
Satisfied or very satisfied
Neither satisfied not dissatisfied
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied
35% (7)
5% (1)
60% (12)
Figure 5: Psychology Students' degree of overall satisfaction with the tutorials they have
had (n= 20)Satisfied or very satisfied
Neither satisfied not dissatisfiedDissatisfied or very dissatisfied
There were some major differences in the degree of overall satisfaction experienced by the whole sample and psychology students with the tutorials.
Whereas 91% of the total sample was satisfied or very satisfied with their tutorials, only 35% of psychology students were happy with their sessions.
Any ideas why these differences may exist?
18
c. Nature of relationship between student and Mentor
Figure 6: Degree to which Psychology students found it helpful to have a Writing Mentor from A DIFFERENT/THE SAME subject area
(total sample n=20/19)
10.5
21.126.3
42.1
90
05 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Very or fairly helpful Neither helpful norunhelpful
Only a little helpful ornot helpful at all
N/A
different subject- psychology students same subject- psychology students
Overall, Psychology students found it very or fairly helpful to have a Writing Mentor from the same subject area (90%), compared to the total sample (68.8%).
Further, 26.3% found it little or not at all helpful having a Writing Mentor from a subject area other than Psychology (26.3%), similar to the total sample (23.8%).
19
d. Students’ attitudes towards their own writing before and after participating in the Scheme
95%
5%
Figure 7: Degree to which students felt the Writing Centre helped them to develop their writing
generally
Very or fairly helpful
Neither helpful nor unhelpful
20
d. Students’ attitudes towards their own writing before and after participating in the Scheme
Figure 8: Students' self-ratings of confidence about their own writing before/after coming to the Writing Centre (n=
68/69)
0
5
10
15
20
Extr
em
ely
con
fid
en
t
Extr
em
ely
un
con
fid
en
t
AFTER BEFORE
Figure 8 shows that students’ confidence levels rose after visiting the Writing Centre.
Conclusions
21
We found evidence of: Students visiting the Writing Centre because they wanted to talk
about their writing with someone and wanted assurance that they were on the right track with their assignments.
Psychology students wanted Writing Mentors in their own subject – understandable in UK context of disciplinary degrees.
Student perception that the Writing Centre helped them develop their writing.
Considerable student satisfaction. Psychology students were less satisfied with the tutorials they had, compared
to the overall sample- any thoughts on why perceptions differ?Increased student confidence about their own writing.
Where do we go from here?Research into…
The relationship between participation in the Writing Mentor Scheme and student achievement – for both Mentors and students.
Longitudinal intervention study to assess the impact of the Writing Centre on student performance.
Using quantitative and qualitative methods Collaboration with staff to develop assessment tools for different
disciplines Observation and recording of tutorials Content analysis of student writing, using discipline-specific
assessment criteria Correlation with essay and examination grades
Any ideas?
22
References
23
Anderson, T., and Soden, R. (2001). Peer interaction and the learning f critical thinking skills. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 37-40.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and ‘the conversation of mankind’. College English, 46, 635-52. Helman, S. and Horswill, M. S. (2002). Does the introduction of non-traditional teaching techniques improve
psychology undergraduates' performance in statistics? Psychology Learning and Teaching, 2 (1), 12-16. Hill, R., and Reddy, P. (2007). Undergraduate peer mentoring: an investigation into processes, acivities and
outcomes. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 6 (2), 98- 103. Hixenbaugh, P., Dewart, H., Drees, D., and Williams, D. (2005). Peer e-mentoring: enhancement of the first
year experience. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 5 (1), 8-14. Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center. The Writing Center Journal, 12.1,
3-10. Newman, M. (2007). ‘Appalling’ writing skills drive tutors to seek help. Times Higher Education, 07 May 2007. North, S.M. (1982). Training Students to Talk about Writing. College Composition and Communication, 33,
434-441. Rae, J. & Baillie, A. (2005). Peer tutoring and the study of psychology: tutoring experience as a learning
method. Psychology Teaching Review, 11 (1), 53. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language, revised and edited by A. Kozulin, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 457-69.
top related