Content uploaded by Benjamin Habib
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benjamin Habib on Feb 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Archived at the Flinders Academic Commons:
http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/dspace/
This is the publisher’s copyrighted version of this article.
The original can be found at: http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2007/
papers/p98.pdf
© 2007 HERDSA
Published version of the paper reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the
publisher. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish
this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for
resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in
other works must be obtained from HERDSA.
!
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc
Enhancing Higher Education,
Theory and Scholarship
Proceedings of the
30th HERDSA Annual Conference
8-11 July 2007
Adelaide, Australia
Habib, B. (2007) Breaking the Ritual: Getting Students to Participate in Discussion-based
Tutorials in the Social Sciences, in Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship,
Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference, Adelaide, 8-11 July 2007: pp 205.
Published 2007 by the
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc
PO Box 27, Milperra, NSW 2214, Australia
www.herdsa.org.au
ISSN: 0155 6223
ISBN: 0 908557 71 X
This research paper was reviewed using a double blind peer review process that meets
DEEWR requirements. Two reviewers were appointed on the basis of their independence,
expertise and experience and received the full paper devoid of the authors’ names and
institutions in order to ensure objectivity and anonymity. Where substantial differences
existed between the two reviewers, a third reviewer was appointed. Papers were evaluated
on the basis of originality, quality of academic merit, relevance to the conference theme and
the standard of writing/presentation. Following review, this full paper was presented at the
international conference.
Copyright@ 2007 HERDSA and the authors. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review,
as permitted under the Copyright, Design and Patent Act, 2005, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any for
or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the
terms and licenses issued by the copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to
the publishers at the address above.
Breaking the Ritual: Getting Students to Participate in
Discussion-based Tutorials in the Social Sciences
Ben Habib
Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
habi0015@flinders.edu.au
The challenge for tutors in avoiding the pitfalls of the ritualised tutorial and facilitating a
positive tutorial learning environment is threefold: First, less confident students should
participate in class discussion. Second, confident students should be managed such that they
do no monopolise class discussion, and third, students should take responsibility for their
efforts in class to avoid the tutorial becoming another lecture. To do this the tutor should
foster a positive learning environment and implement a class structure that facilitates wider
participation by all students in the class. To participate effectively students need to be
familiar with key concepts from the topic reading material. The intervention had two
primary components: First, a large portion of the initial tutorial was devoted to introductory
activities in which the students got to know each other. Second, subsequent tutorials began
with a paired warm-up activity to get the whole class talking immediately, after which each
student raised a prepared question for class discussion. Students perceived the intervention
as a success in developing a positive tutorial learning environment, which helped them
engage with the course content.
Keywords: tutorial, student-directed learning, deep learning.
Tutorials are the primary hands-on component of topics in international relations, within
which students should develop a greater understanding of the course material through
discussion with their peers. At its best, the tutorial is a place where students can cultivate a
grasp of complex issues and learn to challenge accepted ideas in a reasoned manner. Yet
often tutorials become ritualised monotonous lectures of little educational value. Students
need to feel comfortable in their surroundings before venturing an opinion, free from fear of
judgement by peers and tutor. Students often don’t get to participate because one or two of
their peers dominate the class. Confident students can monopolise a tutorial, turning it into a
dialogue between themselves and the tutor at the expense of the rest of the class. Tutorials
like this do little to help students come to grips with complex course material and give them
little incentive to read the core readings, or to obtain further information beyond the set
reading list.
The challenge for tutors in facilitating good tutorials is threefold: First, less confident
students should participate in class discussion. Second, confident students should be
encouraged not to monopolise class discussion, and third, students should take responsibility
for their efforts in class. To do this the tutor should foster a positive learning environment
and implement a class structure that facilitates wider participation by all students. To
participate effectively students need to be familiar with key concepts from the topic reading
material.
I have trialled an intervention in tutorials for the second year undergraduate course Peace and
War—an international relations topic at Flinders University—which attempted to address
these issues. The intervention had two primary components: First, the initial tutorial was
devoted to introductory activities in which the students got to know each other. Second,
subsequent tutorials began with a paired warm-up activity to generate class interaction, after
which each student raised a prepared question for class discussion. Asking good questions
can enhance the ability of students to understand complex information (Biggs, 1999, p. 61)
and provides incentive for them to read the set material without resorting to coercive
measures such as weekly tests, which tend to impact negatively on student enthusiasm
(Schank, 1995, p. 106).
Student Engagement and Deep Learning
Kuh et al (2007, p. 2) and Carini et al (2006, p. 19) report that student engagement has a
positive impact on student grades, gleaned from research based on results from the annual
National Survey of Student Engagement in the United States. The intervention aims to
increase student engagement with this in mind, based on three underlying premises. The first
premise draws on a model of a tutorial built around class discussion, within which the tutor is
a facilitator of class participation, inviting students to assume some control over their learning
in the tutorial (Lublin, 1987, p. 6). Building an environment conducive to class discussion as
a matter of process—how learning is facilitated—rather than of content (Gibbs, 1992, p. 23;
Bertola & Murphy, 1994, p. 8-10). A comfortable class environment can help the tutorial
become a venue for students to make judgements about the topic matter, to examine the
relationships of core ideas to one another, and to perceive their world in a new and different
way through dialogue (Mezirow, 1990, p. 354; 1997, p. 10).
The second premise centres on student-directed learning as a process whereby students are
able to take the initiative in their learning, without the external direction of others in
identifying their learning needs and formulating learning goals (Knowles, 1975, p. 18;
Brookfield, 1985, p. 9-10; Candy, 1991, p. 6). Candy (1991, p. 9) describes student-directed
learning as such:
It is perhaps useful to think of teachers and learners as occupying positions of a continuum
extending from teacher-control at one extreme to learner-control at the other, where the
deliberate surrendering of certain prerogatives by the teacher is accompanied by the
concomitant acceptance of responsibility by the learner or learners.
This description is useful because the tutor does not abdicate control over the tutorial, but
rather gives the student a degree of autonomy within a well-defined class structure.
The third premise is that an appropriate class structure fostering a degree of self-directed
learning is likely to translate into a process described by Gibbs (1992, p. 2) as deep learning:
“The student attempts to make sense of what is to be learnt, which consists of ideas and
concepts. This involves thinking, seeking integration between components and between tasks,
and ‘playing’ with ideas,” resulting in a more thorough and complex understanding of the
subject matter. Schank (1995, p. 123) describes the process as one of learning through
failure. Students are often road-blocked by knowledge failures in their education, where they
realise they need new information to progress. The learning experience comes through
acquiring new information to overcome the knowledge failure. Another variation on the
same theme is Mezirow’s transformative learning through the disorienting dilemma, where
classroom situations put in place by the teacher lead students to re-evaluate their perspective
on the subject matter (Mezirow, 1991, p. 168). All three paradigms describe a learning
process leading to enhanced understanding of given information, for which the intervention
described in this paper is a trigger. It is more likely to occur if students are situated within a
positive emotional and motivational learning environment (Gibbs, 1992, p. 10-11).
Structured Intervention
(1) Introductory activities in the first tutorial
Students generally need to get to know their peers before they feel comfortable in sharing
their opinions and taking intellectual risks. The class needs to be a safe place within which
they have the confidence to share and view class discussion as a collaboration of ideas
instead of a submission to judgement (Maslach, Silver, & Pole, 2001, p. 72).
Students engaged in several introductory activities in pairs during the first tutorial. Their
initial task was to discuss with their partner a positive tutorial experience from previous
topics. They then introduced their partner to the class, sharing their positive experiences. It
is often easier to introduce someone else to a group rather than yourself, which removes some
of the apprehension of a first-time meeting (Bertola & Murphy, 1994, p. 13). This activity
also got the students acculturated to listening to their peers and made them more aware of the
diversity of the group. Two more paired activities were conducted, in which students were
asked to find a new partner and discuss a new set of questions. Answers to both questions
were discussed with the whole group.
The first tutorial was largely devoted to establishing a comfortable class atmosphere instead
of spending excessive time on administrative issues. One introductory activity provides only
a superficial opportunity for peer bonding and is not enough to establish a comfortable
environment. Investing time in the first tutorial for peer bonding activities creates an
ongoing dynamic for participation in subsequent tutorials, which is an important foundation
for the successful implementation of structured class activities throughout the course (Gibbs,
1992, p. 9-10; Knowles, 1975, p. 71).
(2) Short paired activity to begin each tutorial
Subsequent tutorials began with a short paired activity in which students discussed a set issue
from the readings, with the aim of re-establishing a relaxed class atmosphere and getting
them intellectually warmed up for the class discussion to come. This activity allowed the
group to identify key points for each week’s topic. Having identified the key ideas, students
could move on in class discussion to their application in real-world scenarios.
(3) Each student prepares a question for class discussion
Students were instructed to each prepare a question for class discussion based on the core
readings or a current event related to that week’s topic. In leading the discussion students
could get the answers that they wanted from the group. Each student would raise their
question and give their opinion first, leading into an open discussion. There were two goals
here: (1) to regulate class discussion to ensure that all students got to participate, and (2) by
creating their own question, the students engaged more deeply with the subject matter than
they otherwise would by only reading the set course materials.
Results and Student Feedback
Student perceptions of the effectiveness of the intervention were measured through two
survey data sets, taken from my tutorial cohort: The first was compiled mid-semester, while
the second data set was compiled through the university’s official Student Evaluation of
Teaching survey (SET). One dataset from the SET survey covers student respondents from
all tutorials in the course, with a second dataset covering student respondents from my
tutorial groups.
The Mid-Semester Survey graph (Figure 1) indicates that all students surveyed felt
encouraged to participate, showing that the structured intervention of getting each student to
ask a question in class discussion was well received at that time. 74 percent of students
strongly agreed, and 22 percent agreed, that they felt comfortable asking questions in our
tutorials, while all students broadly agreed that the tutor responded to their needs. These
latter figures indicate that students felt comfortable in the learning environment that was
established, vindicating the ice-breaker activities in the first class and the weekly introductory
exercise.
Mid-Semester Survey Results
0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%
0% 4% 0%
17%
22%
13%
83%
74%
87%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
The tutor respected students and
responded to their needs
You felt comfortable asking questions
in this tutorial
The tutor encouraged students to
actively participate in tutorials
Strongly Agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 1: Mid-Semester Survey Results
SET Survey Results (Entire Course)
10%
3%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
3%
7%
3%
17%
10%
38%
28%
28%
48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tutor encouraged student participation in learning
activites
Tutor showed respect for students views and opinions
1 Strongly Disagree
2
3
4 Undecided
5
6
7 Strongly Agree
Not Applicable
Figure 2: Student Evaluation of Teaching Survey Results – Whole Course
SET Survey Results (My Student Group)
0% 0%0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0%
5%
0%
5%
16%
21%
84%
69%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tutor encouraged student participation in learning
activites
Tutor showed respect for students views and opinions
7 Strongly Agree
6
5
4 Undecided
3
2
1 Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
Figure 3: Student Evaluation of Teaching Survey Results – My Student Group
The SET Survey results are more revealing, as the responses of my students are compared
with the student responses from the course as a whole. 28 percent of students in the whole
course strongly agreed and 38 percent agreed that they felt encouraged to participate in
learning activities. However, 84 percent of respondents from my student cohort strongly
agreed and 100 percent broadly agreed that they felt encouraged to participate in learning
activities. 90 percent of respondents broadly agreed that the tutor showed respect for their
views and opinion from my student group, a 14 percent increase from the overall course score
for the same question.
The survey data indicates that the intervention put in place to foster a comfortable learning
environment and encourage universal participation was perceived by the students as a success.
In response to the question “what were the best aspects of the tutor’s teaching,” student
feedback in the SET survey included the following endorsements of the intervention:
“Making sure everyone prepared a question ensured tutorial participation.”
“Encouraging us to ask questions and stimulating a discussion in tutorials.”
“He encouraged great conversation in tutorials, both relevant an interesting.”
“The tutorials were awesome as they were like an open debate, which I found really helpful
as we got to hear everyone’s opinions.”
“Getting everyone involved in the tute by organising a question based on the readings
(ensured I did the readings).”
Key Findings
The problem of getting all students to participate in discussion-based tutorials is the bane of
tutors in the social sciences. Designed to move tutorials beyond the common ritualised
monologue, the intervention was based on three premises: First, the quality of the tutorial as a
learning experience for students would be improved by implementing a facilitative structure
to classes. Second, within this structure, students would become more engaged if they could
exercise some control over their learning experience. Third, the structure of the class would
increase the likelihood that students could engage in a transformative learning experience.
Some students were initially resistant to preparing a question each week, but soon most
realised the exercise improved their enjoyment of the class. The intervention decreased the
disparity in class participation, giving the less confident students a space to contribute and be
heard, while dominant students were compelled to allow space for the less confident students
without having to compromise their natural flair. Through devising a question for discussion,
the students generally always read the assigned readings and had to think more deeply about
each week’s topic than they otherwise would have. Thus the intervention itself, involving
ice-breaker activities in the first class, paired warm-up activities at the beginning of
subsequent tutorials, and getting students to prepare a question for each class, were perceived
by both students and myself as a success in developing a positive tutorial learning
environment, which helped them engage with the course content.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge Deanne Gannaway for her assistance in production of
this paper.
References
Bertola, P., & Murphy, E. (1994). Tutoring at University: A Beginner's Practical Guide. Perth: Paradigm Books.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. HERDSA, 18(1), 57-75.
Brookfield, S. (1985). Self-Directed Learning: A Critical Review of Research. In S. Brookfield (Ed.), Self-
Directed Learning: From Theory to Practice (pp. 5-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Candy, P. (1991). Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Carini, R., Kuy, G., & Klein, S. (2006). Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages.
Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning: Based on the Improving Student Learning Project
funded by the Council for National Academic Awards. Bristol: Technical and Education Services.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. Chicago: Association Press.
Kuh, G., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. (2007). Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement
on College Grades and Persistence, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(pp. 1-50). Chicago: Center for Postsecondary Research.
Lublin, J. (1987). Conducting Tutorials. HERDSA Green Guide, 6, 4-7.
Maslach, C., Silver, L., & Pole, N. (2001). Making the First Time a Good Time: Microteaching for New
Teaching Assistants. In L. Prieto & S. Meyers (Eds.), The Teaching Assistant Training Handbook: How
to Prepare TA's for Their Responsibilities (pp. 71-88). Stillwater, Oklahoma: New Forums Press.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Conclusion: Toward Transformative Learning and Emancipatory Education. In J. Mezirow
(Ed.), Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory
Learning (pp. 354-376). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J, (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education (74), 5-12.
Schank, R. (1995). Engines for Education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Copyright © 2007 Ben Habib. The author assigns to HERDSA and educational non-profit institutions a non-
exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is
used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author also grants a non-exclusive licence to
HERDSA to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) on CD and in printed
form within the HERDSA 2007 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express
permission of the author.
