|
|
SPACER SPACER SPACER |
SCOPE ProjectReport on Student Focus Group
|
I. Introduction
To supplement the quantitative information available from questionnaires, focus groups were held to explore the opinions that students have on aspects of the course packs produced for the Social Differentiation course at the University of Stirling in autumn 1996. This course comprised a day stream, taught primarily by Dr Alison Bowes (4711), and an evening stream, taught by Professor Chris Turner (4791).
A second strand to the focus groups was to explore the issues around online provision, as a sizable minority (about one third) had expressed reservations about such provision in the previous academic session.
II. Methodology
Two meetings were arranged for the day stream students, immediately after their lectures during the penultimate teaching week. A single group was arranged during the normal teaching time for the Evening Degree students , also during their penultimate teaching week. With the kind permission of Dr Bowes, short presentations were made to the day stream students at the start of their usual lectures during the week preceding the groups and again on the day of the groups. A flyer was distributed to the evening stream students.
Neal Hazel, a PhD student and tutor in the Department of Applied Social Sciences at Stirling University facilitated the discussion with the 4711 groups. Neal conducted focus groups for SCOPE in the second semester of the 1995/96 academic year at Stirling University, and produced a report on the evaluation carried out for Stage 4 of the Project. Professor Turner contributed to the discussion with the evening students.
As a reward for participating in the focus groups, each student was given a pack of goods up to a value of £2.30. The day stream students received a bottle and can of beer, a can of soft drink, and a mixture of chocolate bars: evening students received two 200g chocolate bars and a can of soft drink. These incentives were mentioned at the start of the lecture immediately preceding the focus groups.
On November 28th, 252 students were registered on 4711 and 15 students were registered on 4791.
III. Findings
Each session lasted between 35 and 45 minutes. The first group, on Tuesday 26th November, attracted 17 participants; more than had been anticipated. Five people in this group had purchased one or more SCOPE packs. The second group, on Thursday 28th November, attracted 13 participants, five of whom had purchased one or more SCOPE packs. The third group on Monday December 2nd included 12 participants, seven of whom had bought packs (and four of whom had bought all three).
Thus, of 42 participants, 17 (40.5%) had bought SCOPE packs, which is similar to the 36.2% of respondents who had claimed to have bought packs during the mid-semester questionnaire. On this criterion, therefore, the groups were representative, if not of the class as a whole then certainly of the 105 respondents to the mid-semester questionnaire.
While the first two groups were self-selecting, the third group was not. The evening degree students had quite different concerns in many respects from the day students, most of whom were full-time students. They were also less forthcoming in discussion than the day students. It is worth noting the different circumstances of the evening course: i) Neal Hazel was not present to facilitate the discussion; ii) Professor Turner was present during the session; iii) the evening group was a "captive audience" who had not exercised a choice to be present.
(1) Printed course packs
(a) 4711
On the distressing finding (from the mid-semester questionnaire) that several students didn't know that the SCOPE packs existed, some commented that they didn't have the time to absorb everything in course handouts at the start of the semester when they were receiving a lot of material. Students in the group did recall being told about the packs by lecturers during the first lecture.
Several students commented that the packs were useful, particularly for the tutorials and for revision. Those that had purchased packs found the convenience of having readings in one place very helpful, particularly at the start of their time at university when they are having to absorb a great deal. One said that she couldn't cope with using the library as well as everything else.
Those students that didn't buy packs found material readily available through RBR provision. One said that she usually went in with a list of half a dozen articles that she was wanting, and could always get two or three of them without difficulty.
Price was a major factor contributing to the decision not to purchase. £45 (for three packs) was too high a cost to bear. One commented that there were too many other priorities for expenditure at the start of the term. Another said that buying all three would have been too expensive (at £60! -- she had bought the earlier 4712 pack at £20.50 and must have assumed the new packs were the same price), as she budgeted about £25 per course for text purchases.
There did seem to be a difference between on-campus students and those that live off campus, with the latter finding the convenience of having the packs helpful.
Comments were sought about the relevance of the packs. Several commented that the packs were expensive to buy when only one or a few articles from each pack were needed for their workshops or essays and that often material was needed from all three packs to read in depth. Several mentioned that they read material that was specifically mentioned in lectures or workshops, though one student did say that he had found every article in the pack that he had bought had been mentioned in formal classes. Others said it was more useful, and cheaper, to photocopy relevant articles from RBR than to buy the whole SCOPE reader, when there was only limited time available to read material. Students tended to be focussed on material needed for essays or workshops.
There were criticisms of the pack composition. There seemed to be a general feeling in both day groups that gathering together articles in subject areas would have been helpful. Several commented that there wasn't enough material on any particular essay topic in any one pack to make purchase worthwhile. A wider range of material was also a common request. One commented that the SCOPE packs were not directly relevant to the lectures or workshop topics: much of the material in the packs was from the additional reading rather than from the core reading on the course handout. One student would have liked all the material in one pack, to save flicking between different packs, but others thought the resulting expense would be too high.
There was a call for better labelling of the material in the pack, e.g. each reading labelled with the section of the course to which it was particularly relevant. The articles were not clearly enough indexed, either in the SCOPE readers themselves or in the course handout.
The physical construction of the pack attracted considerable criticism. One said that it looked like photocopies bound into a folder. One student said that hers had fallen apart with use. Unfavourable comparisons were made with a Psychology Department publication which cost £18.
On the issue of spoon-feeding, those students who had bought packs still used other resources as well, supporting findings from the mid-semester questionnaire. One mature student had arranged with friends to buy a pack each and share resources, finding that having a SCOPE pack was very useful as a baseline from which to read more widely. Another complained that a pack wasn't sufficient in itself to read for the course!
(b) 4791
Last year the packs were not available in John Smith's bookshop in time for the first teaching session for the evening degree students. This year, again, the packs were not available in time for the first session although they were available the following day: the evening course commenced a week earlier than the day course. Professor Turner commented that it would be useful to have the material available the week preceding the start of the course.
The strongest impression that came across from the part-time students was the limited time and access that they have to any resources. Professor Turner stated how difficult the reduction in library hours had been for part-time students.
Among those who bought packs, convenience again appeared to be a major reason, particularly given the limited time that these students spend on campus. The packs were particularly useful for students new to studying. By contrast, one of those who didn't buy said that material was readily available in the library. Others cited the cost, particularly of all three packs. One had bought the 4712/4792 pack last semester for £20.50, and thought that £45 was too much. With three packs to choose from, another delayed purchase to see which one would be most useful, and ended up not buying any of them. One who had bought all three for £45 would have liked to see a reduced number of articles to reduce the price.
Comments were made about the content of the pack, and how useful an introduction to the contents would have been, perhaps with an indication of which area of the course the reading was relevant to. One said that there "didn't seem to be any logical reasoning behind the packs, nothing constructive about them; that they appeared to be just a whole load of photocopies put together with no organisation behind them."
One would like to sell the packs back (to SCOPE) to recover a portion of his costs!
Again, some complained that the packs fell apart with use.
Concern was strongly expressed that material that had been included in the packs had been completely withdrawn from RBR (this appears to be misconception: all material included in the packs was duplicated in RBR).
(2) Online delivery
(a) 4711
When the idea of computer delivery was mooted, several concerns were raised, although the principle was commended. These were primarily about access and cost, particularly in comparison with the current provision through RBR. Several commented on the difficulties and delays in getting passwords to the network. Even those doing Psychology, where students are signed up as a class at the start of the semester, had found difficulties. Several commented that access to computers at the University was already horrendous, and providing readings on the net would exacerbate the situation. Another student reported that she had had three terminals crash in succession while she was using them.
On-campus students were more enthusiastic about computer delivery than off-campus students, who cited a shortage of time. On-campus students have 24 hour access to computer facilities: several commented that they use the computers in the middle of the night. Off-campus students were somewhat less enthusiastic about this provision!
Several participants were notably phobic about computers, and this wasn't limited to the mature students.
Dial-up access was also considered to be attractive. This is not currently available to undergraduates. There was also interest expressed in downloading articles to disk for reading on PCs at home or elsewhere. If this is not possible, there was interest in downloading the lists of articles available. An attractive option would be for a student to be able to arrange to have articles printed to collect later, like a request service for the articles.
Students would be unwilling to pay much more than current photocopying costs for printing articles. Most found current provision quite convenient, although queues at photocopiers were identified as a problem. Concern was expressed that queues at computers would be no advantage over queues at photocopiers. If computers were more convenient to use than photocopiers, people would be more willing to use them.
There was concern that computer access would imply removal of the photocopies from RBR.
(b) 4791
There was concern about the limited access to computer facilities (as with general provision for part-time students), given the lack of time that part-time students spend on campus. One said that she would not have time to sit at a computer terminal.
Only one student had a password for the system.
One asked for access to the readings on disk. One implied that cutting and pasting would provide a viable alternative to paying for printed output.
Concern was expressed again that computer provision would imply removal of material from RBR.
One student was concerned about the whole issue of free provision versus fee provision.
IV. Summary
In total, 30 students from the day stream (4711) and 12 students from the evening stream (4791) took part in the three groups. The attendance from 4711 students was greater than had been anticipated. I believe that this was due to three factors:
(a) "advertising" through flyers and short presentations at the lectures in the week preceding the groups;
(b) timing the groups immediately after the lectures;
(c) the presence of Neil Hazel, who was known to the students as a tutor on the course, and who could relate to them particularly successfully;
(d) the offer of rewards for participation.
Paper packs
1) Those students who bought packs generally found them convenient and useful, particularly for revision purposes.
2) Cost was still a major factor in the decision not to purchase the SCOPE packs. Students seemed to be under the mistaken idea that all three packs were necessary.
3) There was a strong demand for focussed packs, with all readings relevant to a particular subject area, workshop, or essay topic grouped together.
4) Several commented that packs were expensive when only one or a few articles from each pack were needed for workshops or essays. Students concentrate upon material needed for essays or workshops. Many find it cheaper and more useful to photocopy relevant articles from RBR.
5) There was a call for better quality binding and better labelling of the material in the packs.
6) The packs were once again not available for the first evening of the 4791 course.
Online delivery
1) On the whole, students liked the idea of access to materials across the campus computer network. There was a major concern about access to the computer facilities. This was not only about the numbers of computers, but also about queues building up at the terminals that were available.
On-campus students had fewer concerns about access (to computers and traditional resources) than did off-campus students. Part-time students in particular were concerned about the lack of time that they have available to spend on campus and in the library in general and on computer terminals in particular.
2) Several students were still somewhat 'phobic' about using computers.
3) A secondary concern was the cost of online resources. Students would be unwilling to pay much more than current photocopying costs for printing articles.
4) Dial-up access, and/or the facility to download material on diskette, were mooted as attractive options.
5) Students see online provision as complementing traditional provision, not replacing it.