Background

What is the purpose of a tutorial? Is it merely to solve a set problem and come to a single solution? Is it better for students to be able to talk and explore the topics covered in lectures, with an expert on hand, so that they can consolidate their learning?

These are questions we have been discussing. Ideally, students arrive at a tutorial session primed with their subject knowledge and prepared to engage in a fruitful discussion to develop and extend their understanding. However, this is not always the case. A familiar scene is the professor talking and probing to check learning whilst reticent students hold back or only a handful are willing to put their views forward. We have been looking at strategies that will get students to talk.

Figure 1. An example of an observation sheet

Figure 2. An example of a perception sheet

We used a framework to scaffold discussion that was originally designed to help school pupils develop emotionally and socially within science lessons (Matthews, 2004; Morrison & Matthews, 2006). We found that the framework encouraged students to open up to one another and to the professor. One student commented: "This is the first time I am hearing some of my classmates' voices." The framework is straightforward to implement but the tutorial does require careful planning and preparation, particularly the first time the strategy is used.

How the strategy was employed in tutorials

Within the tutorial, students were asked to get into groups. An observer, also a student, sat outside the group initially. Students were told that they would discuss the first tutorial question and as they discussed, they would be monitored by an observer to see how each person had contributed to the task. The observer has to complete the 'observation sheet' (Figure 1). Students were given a fixed amount of time to work together on the tutorial question. While they were working, the lecturer withdrew from the tutorial to let students speak freely. At the end of the allotted time, the lecturer returned and students presented the answer which they had constructed together. The lecturer then gave feedback on the answer.

Each student was then asked to complete a 'perception sheet' (Figure 2) to gauge who had talked (most and least), who listened, who was supportive and so on. The observer then feeds back to the group. There was a discussion in which each member of the group could supply his/her viewpoint and could compare this to the rest and to the observer's notes. This structured work enabled students within the group to discuss how they had worked together and how they felt.

The procedure was repeated, with a change of observer, so that the original observer could now participate. Students now had some idea of how they had contributed to the first discussion and some changed the level of their participation accordingly. Again the lecturer returned at the end of the allotted time. Students then presented their collective answers, the lecturer again discussed this with them and then the group discussion was examined as above. Students soon became comfortable with the structure and were contributing to the class discussions.

By the third question, students were sufficiently familiar and an observer was no longer required. Students were then offered a choice of having the lecturer in the room or withdrawing from it, and they chose to discuss the question on their own.

The tutorial questions

We have described a model of a tutorial in which four carefully structured questions of increasing complexity are used. The first question is an 'ice-breaker' statement to which all students in the group can contribute. For example, students were asked to discuss the statement "students stay away from organometallic chemistry because they find it boring". The next question then requires them to apply readings that they have prepared beforehand. The final two questions require students to apply aspects of information from the lecture course to synthesise possible explanations to observed phenomena. To be able to do this effectively, it is important that they can talk freely to one another. Texts are available in the tutorial for reference.

Figure 3. Hierarchy of teaching method

Lecturer's perception

The strategy employed meant that students become aware of their own and other students' levels of contribution to the debate. This enables them to adjust their own levels of participation accordingly. They come to understand that all contributions are equally important in the process of synthesising an answer together. Moreover, the apprehension associated with giving a wrong answer in front of the class or the lecturer is not around.

By the time the lecturer returns, students have had the opportunity to develop responses to the tutorial questions and have overcome the initial difficulty of talking within the group. Subsequent discussions are lively and dynamic. From our observations, by the time the group feeds back the final answer they are feeling sufficiently confident with one another and with the lecturer, that they can reflect on areas they have found difficult.

What do students think?

Students were asked for their feedback on this style of tutorial. They were positive about the process and the opportunity to develop their understanding in this way. There was definitely lively debate and participation from all students. However, students indicated that they felt slightly uncomfortable initially with the change in tutorial style.

A few students would have preferred to have been given the questions beforehand, rather than facing the challenge of drawing on their existing knowledge and using texts to discuss open-ended topics. They felt they would have liked the discussion to lead to a set of model answers. One student commented: "I want closure in a discussion. I want an answer."

Conclusion

As a model for teaching, we felt that this supports effective learning. It recognises the role that language plays in constructing knowledge and encourages this. In addition it enables students to understand and value the contributions that each one can make to a successful tutorial.

Notes

Liz Morrison has been visiting the Department of Chemistry on the OAP (Overseas Attachment Programe inbound) programme.

References

Matthews, B. (2004). 'Promoting Emotional Literacy, Equity and Interest in KS3 Science Lessons for 11-14 Year Olds; the 'Improving Science and Emotional Development' Project'. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 281-308.

Morrison, L. & Matthews, B. (2006). 'How Pupils Can be Helped to Develop Socially and Emotionally in Science Lessons'. Pastoral Care in Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 10-19.