Results of Student Focus Groups

Results of Student Focus Groups

Collaborative Teaching Grant Project—SOCI 454

April 2008

In April 2008, FIPSE staff members conducted focus groups with thestudents enrolled in one collaboratively taught section of Sociology 454. The faculty members teaching this section had received a Collaborative Teaching Grant (CTG) to explore collaborative teaching approaches. The students completed a survey on integrative learning and participated in focus group discussions. This assessment project was supported by Roanoke’s FIPSE grant.

One goalof this collaborative teaching project was to help studentsconnect sociological issues and theories with practical applications. Additional goals that concern faculty development will be addressed in a separate report.

The focus group discussion was conducted by Adrienne Bloss andSusan Kirby.

The discussion was held during a regularly scheduled class meeting. Fourteen students participated.

The focus group sessions consisted of four components:

• Survey on integrative learning
• Focus group discussion
• Small-group activity
• Feedback on focus group process

This report summarizes the results of each of these components.

Survey Results

Students completed a survey regarding integrative learning before the focus group discussion began. All 14 students completing the survey were seniors. The highlights are described below.

Integration. When asked the extent to whichthe collaboratively taught SOCI 454 course had helped them connect sociological issues and theories with practical applications, the majority of the students indicated “Much” (11/14, 79%) and a fifth of them indicated “Some” (3/14, 21%), for a mean score of 3.8 on a 5-point scale. Students were asked to compare the integrative elements of this collaboratively taught course to those in courses taught by one instructor and based in a single discipline. Half of the students rated this course as either “More” or “Much More” integrative in four specific skill areas, with a majority responding positively to the ability to combine different facts, theories, and concepts. The following table displays the specific results.

Students’ Assessment of Integrative Learning Elements—SOCI 454 v. Single-Instructor Course
N = 14
The collaboratively taught SOCI 454: / More/Much More / About the Same / Less/Much Less / Mean
Improved students’ ability to identify diverse or conflicting concepts, viewpoints, and/or priorities related to a situation or issue / 7--50% / 7--50% / - / 3.5
Helped students understand the value of considering multiple perspectives / 7--50% / 6--43% / 1—7% / 3.5
Improved students’ ability to examine ideas or phenomena from multiple viewpoints / 7--50% / 7--50% / - / 3.57
Improved students’ ability to combine different facts, theories, and concepts / 8--57% / 6--43% / - / 3.64

Collaborative Teaching Approach. In an open-ended question, students were asked to identify aspects of the collaboratively taught course that worked especially well for them. The most common response indicated that each instructor was able to use his strengths and expertise in the class. Several students recognized the value of applying sociology to real-world problems and appreciated the chance to work with the local community. Some students also appreciated having two instructors to help them. The following is an illustrative comment: “We learned how to do something so important like writing a grant to help other people and Dr. Sarabia put it into sociology terms for us and working with the agencies.”

Student responses to the question “what aspects of this collaboratively taught SOCI 454 course did not work especially well for you?” were somewhat varied, but certain patterns did appear. The most common problem named by students was differences in the instructors’ expectations or grading. Some students wanted clearer directions or guidance for writing the grant proposals.

Suggestions for Improvement. Responses to the questions “if you could make one improvement in this collaboratively taughtSOCI 454 course, what would you do?” and “how would students benefit from that change?” were varied. Some suggestions included

• More focus on grant process, funding agencies, and service agencies
• More collaboration of instructors, especially concerning expectations and grading
• More integration of sociology with grant writing (not separate elements)

In addition, some students seemed to feel uncertain about the relative importance of sociology content and grant writingskills in the grading of their writing assignments.

Focus Group Component

Students volunteered oral responses to questions about their experiences in SOCI 454 and offered suggestions for improving the course. This interaction was recorded on tape and in notes, with both sources being used for the following analysis.

Can you describe one example of how this course improved your ability to identify diverse or conflicting concepts or viewpoints related to a situation or issue / how ithelped you understand the value of considering multiple perspectives / how it improved your ability to examine ideas or phenomena from multiple viewpoints?

Most students’ answers related to the course’s hands-on, real-world application of sociology to community needs. Students found it valuable to learn about the different cultures of the service organizations as well as the types of people served by each organization—e.g., abused and neglected children. Some students realized that the experience had taught them look at the clients’ needs, not the students’ perception of what was needed. Students also mentioned the presentations and the midterm examination as helping them to learn different theories and to connect theoretical perspectives and applications to “bureaucracy.” Also mentioned as helpful were the readings (book) about agencies and social problems and the overarching themes of conceptualizing compassion and vulnerability. Students described their exposure to grant writing and the non-profit world as opening new perspectives.

Illustrative Comments from Students

“The application of theories to real problems, e.g., energy companies don’t see global warming as a problem as they have more to gain than lose.”

“It is important to put ourselves in others’ shoes—we can’t look at our expectations or society’s.”

What would you say is the main difference between this collaboratively taught course and other courses you have taken taught by only one instructor?

Students commented about the positive and enriching collaboration they observed when two instructors were always involved in the class, especially in giving students feedback. However, some students found thisclass dynamic challenging when it came to the instructors’ expectations and feedback. Although one or two students suggested that feedback had come only after their work had received a grade, other students said that students could turn in papers early for input and they had found this very helpful. This discussion thread suggested that there might be two groups of students in the class—those who had taken advantage of the instructors’ willingness to give early feedback on assignments and those who had not. It was pointed out that in some cases students were given three different perspectives on how to write proposals: from the book, from an agency, and from one instructor.

Illustrative Comments from Students

“Each [instructor] knew their strengths and weaknesses in the classroom and deferred to the other as needed.”

“Each would remember things the other forgot. Also, more one-on-one time with students.”

“There were conflicts on what the professors wanted—we got different feedback from the different professors.”

“Had a good experience. We could turn in a paper early for input—very helpful. No conflicts.”

Small-Group Evaluative Activity

Participants worked in small groups of three or four to develop a consensus list of responses to the three open-ended questions they answered in the survey. Groups were invited to report a response to the whole group; the facilitator clarified and paraphrased each response and wrote it on the board. Responses were gathered from all groups.

Several students appreciated being able to apply theory to actual service agencies as well as having two professors to go to for help. Students identified some aspects of the course which did not work for them, but no significant theme beyond those in the surveys appears in their comments. Small groups also generated ideas forimproving the class by helping students to make connections among different disciplines and classes, to apply what they learned in practical ways,and/or to connect classroom learning to their lives outside of class. The most common suggestions involved garnering strong buy-in and support from each agency and providing more grant-writing instructions and grading rubrics for students.

Feedback on Focus Group Process

Student responses to an evaluation at the end of the session helped us to judge the veracity of the information provided and to gauge facilitator performance. Responses to the third question indicate how much students appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback.

Two thirds of the students indicated that their contributions to the discussion were very or extremely open and honest, with the other one third describing their contributions as moderately open. A majority described the facilitator as either very (6, 50%) or extremely (4, 33%) helpful in making sure that everyone had a fair chance to speak. And all the students very much appreciated the opportunity to provide input to the College (very—9, 75% and extremely—3, 25%).

Conclusion

The student survey, focus groups, and student-generated evaluative activityused to assess the level of integration in a collaboratively taught Sociology 454provided valuable data.

Students did value their exposure to two different professors with different fields of expertise, and they valued their experience applying sociological theories to the needs of real people and community service agencies. The presentations and the midterm examination also enhanced student learning. In addition, the instructors’ different voices added variety and interest for students.

Based on this assessment project, areas for improvement in future collaboratively taught SOCI 454 classes would seem to include

• Making the instructors’ expectations and grading clear and consistent
• Considering the use of rubrics for grading
• Giving full instructions for writing proposals, including access to model proposals
• Emphasizing and encouraging the availability of instructor feedback on drafts
• Allowing more time for groups to work on proposals in class and earlier in semester

If at all possible, the instructors should try to ensure that the service agencies involved fully understand the class project upfront, including its importance to students and the instructors’ expectations of students (e.g., writing process and grading standards).

All in all, students believed that the collaborative teaching approach in this course enhanced their learning by helping them to connect sociological issues and theories with practical applications. Most of the students realized and appreciated the value of this unique experience. If offered again, the course might benefit from some of the refinements suggested here, but the course structure seems to be sound.

1