Using peer group work in conducting undergraduate qualitative projects
Dr Siobhan Hugh-Jones and Dr Anna Madill
Institute of Psychological Sciences
University of Leeds
December 2006
Project Funded by the Higher EducationAcademy Psychology Network Departmental Teaching Enhancement Scheme
The following worksheets were developed by Siobhan Hugh-Jones and Anna Madill (University of Leeds) as part of a project funded by the Higher Education Academy Psychology Network Departmental Teaching Enhancement Scheme. The aim of this project was to develop an effective means of utilising peer group work to enhance the learning experience of final year undergraduates conducting a qualitative research project in psychology. To do this, we piloted and evaluated peer group learning with twenty-nine relevant undergraduate students in our department and developed and refined the materials presented to you here.
Six worksheets have been developed according to perceived milestones in the students’ research process and assume that students are undertaking a qualitative analysis of interview material; (1) Research question and methodologies, (2) Interviewing schedules and interview skills, (3) Interviewing as a method of data collection, (4) Methods of (qualitative) data analysis, (5) Peer feedback on initial analysis, and (6) How to evaluate qualitative research. These provide students with possible session aims and questions to orientate and facilitate their discussions. Semester timings for each meeting are indicated on each worksheet but these are, of course, flexible. We include also an evaluation form for each meeting.
Feedback from our pilot participants was encouraging. They valued the opportunity to discuss aspects of project work and meetings promoted ideas and the sharing of knowledge. Sessions also fulfilled a need to share anxieties about conducting the project and allowed monitoring of relative progress. It was, however, sometimes difficult for students to adjust to lack of supervision during the group sessions and there were some difficulties running the groups, particularly with regard to timings.
Independent observations of some of the groupsindicated that students were generally willing to learn from each other, primarily in relation to project management. Although students often struggled with the openings of session, in general, they appeared competent innegotiating the level of group discussion in order to enjoy some benefit from them. The availability of learning materials appeared important in protecting some students from being perceived as overly directive.Although students were willing to discuss many aspects of their research, their contribution to the group became restricted when discussing decisions already made with their supervisor. There was very occasional group empowerment when faced with uncertainty, for example deciding to do more research or to trust the group’s ability to make sense of the question on the session handout. However, groups often conceded to uncertainty and could use it to legitimize disengagement.
Our focus group discussion with project supervisors revealed that student participation in peer-learning did not seem to change the nature of supervision meetings, although a minimal reduction in demand was noted and occasional questions were brought to supervision that had originated from group sessions. Moreover, some students had included sections in their reports that were directly linked to issues discussed in the group, e.g. reflexivity and evaluation criteria, and supervisors noticed that many had acknowledged in their report the help they had received from the groups.
Building on the pilot funded by the HEA, the feedback from students and staff has led us to make small but appropriate amendments to the worksheets. We have also begun to cluster participating students according to supervisor hoping that this will increase the cohesiveness of the groups. This should avoid confusing differences in reports of supervisor advice within the groups and provide a supervisor check on the usefulness of group involvement during supervision sessions with ongoing encouragement to attend.
Our advice, then, is to cluster students into groups in a such a way as to increase their cohesiveness. As indicated with reference to focus groups, around 5-7 students per group appears optimum. And, finally, take care to make the practical running of the groups as easy for the students as possible. For example, one task of the first session is electing a ‘chair’ for the group and it seems very important that one member takes overall responsibility for such things as room bookings and communication of meeting times.
Although these worksheets have been designed for peer group learning there is no reason for not adapting them for use as the basis of lectures, seminar, or tutorials. We hope they are of use to you!
Siobhan Hugh-Jones and Anna Madill
1