A variation on the teaching of small group tutorials

Written by Martin Line, School of Agricultural Science

Introduction

Tutorials have the potential to provide a range of benefits to students including insight, critical thinking and development of problem solving and other skills, yet all too easily they can descend into time-wasting or worse. Paradoxically, while still demanding a high level of student participation the success or failure of the tutorial is seen to rest entirely with the teacher. It seems that it is the teacher-student interaction that is most at risk in the tutorial situation and exploration of different avenues of approach to minimise this risk is ongoing.

Strategies have been described to encourage participation, such as the creation of a good group atmosphere, making large groups smaller and rearranging the furniture (a circle of chairs provides a much better atmosphere than that provided in a lecture theatre or laboratory) (University of Technology, Sydney). There are also competitive strategies for undertaking tutorials which can work well for some teachers, only to fail miserably with others.

The problem with tutorials

In the tutorial-teaching of Microbial Ecology and Evolution students have been challenged to actively question, expand upon and link the concepts provided. This has been surprisingly difficult, particularly for overseas students who face the combined problems of cultural/comprehensional difficulties plus a lack of familiarity with this mode of teaching (Samuelowicz, 1987; Biggs, 1997). Even Australian-born students in their third year of a science degree appear to be surprised that they are expected to consider the deeper significance of concepts they are taught rather than simply learn them. Other difficulties arising in the tutorial situation have been the students anxiety of having their ignorance displayed in front of their peers [a difficulty that is exacerbated for overseas students, e.g. Ballard & Clanchy (1991)], and the domination of proceedings by a minority of students to the detriment of others. As a result some students clearly find tutorials threatening and/or alienating, to the point where they fail to come to these sessions.

This case study describes a method that has been successfully employed in student tutorial teaching in 2002 that ameliorates these difficulties while still maximising active student participation.

The teaching and learning practice

The tutorials have the intention of broadening and deepening the student's perspective of topics covered in lectures and to present real-life applications of the theory. The format of teaching tutorials in Microbial Ecology has developed over the years, beginning with a primarily teacher-focussed session where students were challenged with questions, evolving to structured sessions with groups of four working as teams to answer questions relating to the unit using 'butcher paper' and marker pens, leading to the format used in 2002 and described below.

Students were given a set of questions to consider for one week prior to the tutorial. These could be only partially answered by looking up books, they needed thought. The tutorials began with the questions being put on a whiteboard, and the students invited (in sequence) to provide answers to any one of them (correct or developed answers being recorded on the whiteboard). The students could either offer an answer or call a 'pass' if they so wished. There was no penalty for early 'pass' calls, peer pressure being sufficient to ensure that students put some effort into their preparation. When answers were exhausted, the student responses were integrated with previously-prepared answers in a review by the teacher, followed by a hand-out.

Assessment

The tutorials were not assessed separately, but formed part of the 70% theory examination. Students were made aware at the start of term that one question of this exam would be based on tutorials.

Evaluation

Internal assessment of this 'linear' mode of tutorial teaching at the start of term indicated it to be preferred over the group-butcher paper format and was the mode followed for the remainder of the year. SETL feedback on these tutorials was positive, .... 'Tutorials were good because they encouraged thinking, not just going over the lecture notes and looking up the answers.' being a typical response.

The question of why the students preferred this mode of tutorial over the more traditional small-group interaction was not explored, although their preference was unequivocal. Possible reasons might be:

1. that the favoured linear system was less stressful (the small-group sessions did not include the one-week preparation time, although this possibility wasn't necessarily precluded for this type of tutorial)
2. that the sequential dealing with students gave everyone an equal share (if they so wished) of the limelight, in contrast to small group tutorials where one or two students tend to dominate others
3. that the linear tutorial was constantly active, which was in contrast to small group tutorials where students were observed to spend much of their time mulling, writing, talking between themselves on unrelated topics or waiting for other groups to finish.

Reflections

The role of the teacher in the tutorial format as described was most frequently that of probing, extending or re-phrasing partial answers provided by students. This has pitfalls as this teacher has discovered; the teacher cannot afford to give any indication that she/he might think an answer is 'off the planet' but must attempt to reshape such answers in the desired direction, preferably with further student input and without visibly destroying the initial input. It is on this ability that the success of the tutorial ultimately hinges.

References

Ballard, B. & Clanchy, J., 1991. Teaching students from overseas . Melbourne : Longman Chesire.

Biggs, J. 1997. 'Teaching across and within cultures: the issue of international students'. In: R. Murray-Harvey & H.S. Silins (Eds.), Learning and teaching in higher education: Advancing international perspectives . Proceedings of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA).

Samuelowicz, K. 1987. 'Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story'. Higher Education Research & Development , 6(2), 121-133.

University of Technology, Sydney . [nd] 'Tutorials and Seminars', Teaching Matters: A handbook for UTS academic staff , viewed 13 February 2003, < http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/learnteach/resources/tm/teachmatters.html - anchorTutorialsandSeminars >