Developing an Open Learning Framework for Mphil/Phd Research Training

9411

Developing an open learning framework for MPhil/PhD research training

Angela Fenwick, University of Southampton

Introduction

The intention of this paper is to outline a research and development project which I am undertaking for the Faculty of Educational Studies at the University of Southampton and to discuss some of the issues that arise from it. I have focused on activities which we have carried out to date and on reflections on work in progress, rather than on any final conclusions/outcomes.

The primary aim of the study, which began in October 1993, is to develop a means by which we can offer a research training programme which meets the diverse needs of part-time MPhil/PhD research students. We also hope that the work of the project will provide ways to alleviate the marginal/isolated position often felt by adult students in the University.

Part-time MPhil/PhD students

Since the Winfield Report[1] which reported on possible reasons why research students failed to complete their PhDs, and the subsequent publication of the ESRC Guidelines for Postgraduate Research Training for the Social Sciences[2], research training has been a compulsory requirement for students registered for an MPhil/PhD by research.

Our Faculty research training programme was introduced three years ago and is currently delivered through conventional means, i.e. through lectures and seminars during two weekly afternoon sessions. It became increasingly apparent, however, both from the experience of running the programme and from feedback from students, that the needs of part-time students were not being met by the programme for a number of reasons.

This situation was heightened by the fact that within the Faculty, part-time students outnumber full-timers by a large ratio (as at April 1994 by 79 to 12). This weighting towards part-time research students is, I would suggest, more likely to occur within subject areas which are practitioner-based and where professional practitioners choose to carry out research into, or closely related to, their own practice.

One of the initial activities that we undertook for the study was to survey all our registered part-time students in order to gain a clearer picture of different student profiles in relation to, for example, their requirements for research training, their employment situations and what resources they had access to. In total 76 (the number registered at the time of circulation of the survey) part-time MPhil/PhD students were sent the questionnaire and we received 65 responses (i.e. a response rate of 86%). I am currently analysing these, but an initial examination of the returns indicates that of the respondents 22% have attended the research training programme regularly, 32% occasionally and 46% have never attended. If we discount those students who began their studies before the programme was developed, the figures appear to be more like 26%, 35% and 39%. This still means that a majority of part-time students do not attend the programme regularly.

The most common reasons, cited time and time again, for non-attendance were the following: that the students lived too far away from the University to make the journey on a regular basis; that the timing of the programme was inconvenient; and that they simply did not have time to attend. Changing the timing of the sessions would possibly enable more students to attend but would not serve to help those students who cited the two other main reasons.

To complement the survey and to get a more immediate response from students, we invited all the part-time students to attend an evening workshop at the University which took place during the Christmas 1993 vacation. The aim was to involve students in the project from its inception, and to enable them to discuss some of the difficulties they had had, or were having with the programme as well as other possible concerns, for example access to resources within the University, and the learning support they received through the supervisory process or through other means available to them. In total, thirteen students, who were all at different points in their research, attended this workshop. One of its main outcomes was that students supported the notion that we would be developing some open learning research training materials as part of the project, but they also wanted more opportunities to interact and engage in dialogue with other students and other academic staff besides their supervisor. This dialogue was considered, to be a vital part of the PhD process, relieving isolation and helping them to feel part of a wider community of researchers.

Open learning framework

This led us to decide that the most appropriate approach would be to develop an open learning framework which offered both alternative forms of research training delivery and a variety of means by which students could interact with each other and with academic staff.

It was our intention that the learning materials would be utilised in a variety of ways. For example students could use them on their own, in conjunction with their supervisor, or they could be used to complement seminars run at the University. In addition, we determined that we would run some research training sessions at times more appropriate for those part-time students who could get to the University, for example in the evenings, or at the weekends.

Support strategies

We also considered the need to integrate the research training programme with the supervisory process in a more explicit way. At present, the link is a tenuous one, usually consisting of the circulation of the outline of the programme to the supervisors. As some part-time students’ primary link with the University is through their supervisor, it followed that supervisors needed to be familiar with the learning materials and that these should to be useful to them at times when they were discussing the research process with their students. We also envisaged that closer ties between the programme and supervision would enable us to develop the means by which students could negotiate an individualised research training programme to ensure that (a) all students covered all the relevant areas at times most appropriate to meet their needs; and (b) students had access to other students and academic staff through the most convenient channels.

In order to gain a clearer picture of current practice amongst supervisors and to elicit their ideas on how we might proceed, I am currently carrying out a series of interviews with a sample group of supervisors. Following the production of the first draft of the materials, a workshop is to be held for all Faculty research supervisors and the writers of the material, to discuss and agree a set of guidance for the use of the materials by the different parties.

The use of technology to encourage distance interaction between part-time students, for example through e-mail or computer conferencing has its obvious appeal. However, there are presently few opportunities for pursuing computer conferencing, owing to our lack of resources. Another restraining factor is that only 22% of students who responded to the questionnaire have ever used computer network facilities.

Approaches to the development of learning materials

Within the Faculty seven members of staff, all of whom currently teach on the research training programme, are now engaged in writing drafts of the learning materials. Although there are a couple of staff who have had some experience of writing materials, the majority have not. In the project’s first term we held a workshop with our writers (or ‘course team’) to enable them to set the agenda for the project and its progress in the first year. An early decision was to concentrate on producing written text-based materials in the first instance, which could then be developed using other media during the pilot stage of the project. This meant that we could adopt a developmental approach to materials production but it also sat alongside the tight time and budgetary constraints for the first year of the project.

In order to provide the writers with guidance on how to approach the development of the materials we invited an external consultant to facilitate a workshop for us during which we investigated some of the different approaches to designing open/distance learning materials as well as planning out a realistic timetable for the work. Once all the writers have produced a first draft of their work we intend to hold a follow up workshop where the writers discuss the work carried out so far and attempt to resolve any issues/problems that are arising from it.

Our survey reveals that the majority of our part-time students are, in fact, employed as educational practitioners primarily in schools, colleges and universities. How we approached the development of materials needed to reflect this situation and that students were undertaking research work in areas related to their practice.

The type of approach traditionally taken to the design of distance learning materials is that which Rowntree terms ‘the tutorial-in-print’[3] where materials tend to consist of large chunks of text written by an ‘expert’ often with questions and answers for the student to address/work through. This approach was not considered to be an appropriate one for our students, for a number of reasons. For example we wanted to encourage students to interact with the text and to create their own texts rather than present them with a relatively static/fixed set of knowledge; and we wanted students to be able to link their research in their substantive topic areas, their experience as practitioners/researchers and the conceptual ideas presented in the text. The question then arose: how then could we facilitate a more experiential learning approach through the materials that we developed?

Thorpe’s[4] recent article addressed some of the issues that we were considering through outlining how she attempted to incorporate experiential learning into a diploma module at the Open University. She adopted a number of strategies to encourage students to relate their experiences with the theory covered in the material and to reflect on both. These included decreasing the amount of text within the materials and increasing the amount of time that students spent on activities and assignments.

This activity-based approach is one which we have adopted using the technique of ‘signposting’ to guide students through the material and the activities to be undertaken. We have also thought that it may be possible to encourage students to, in some way, add to the materials that we produce by for example, commenting on a particular methodology or giving examples of what they had done. Students could then indicate whether they would be happy to discuss this with other students, and if so how they could be contacted.

Some remaining issues

A number of issues are not yet finally resolved, for example: how do we determine the study time for each module? At the moment we have settled on a fairly arbitrary figure of 20-40 hours per unit which is based on the current programme’s class contact time and which will need to be reviewed when the first drafts of the material are ready. The main difficulties that I perceive here are that the activity-based approach does not necessarily correspond with sitting in a classroom and that some of the activities that the writers devise may take students more time to complete that we envisage.

In addition, we decided not to produce materials for a unit on ‘Research processes and skills’ because we felt that this would be better delivered through face-to-face contact with students at a residential/starter weekend. This would also serve to bring students together near the beginning of their research and make contact with academic staff. However, this will not necessarily be suitable for those students who live at a great distance from the University and so we still need to address how we might deliver this unit at a distance.

I have not addressed the question of assessment during this paper because at present it is students’ final submitted PhD which is assessed rather than the learning that takes place during the research training programme. It may be that at the point when we design guidance for the use of the materials we will need to again consider whether we should introduce an assessment strategy alongside the materials.

The work that I am doing is, in a very real sense, in its early stages and there are a number of areas which I myself am unsure as to how they will be resolved. In many ways, what I have outlined is the preparation for further work, to take place during the pilot stage of the project, which will need to look at how students actually use the materials in practice and whether our attempts to reduce the feelings of isolation that many part-time students experience are successful.

[1] ESRC (1987) The Social Science PhD: the ESRC inquiry on submission rates (Winfield Report) ESRC

[2] ESRC (undated) Postgraduate training guideli