A Preliminary Study of Group Learning/Teaching in the Culture of Religious Studies

Author: Rosemary Beckham

Journal Title: PRS-LTSN Journal

ISSN:

ISSN-L:

Volume: 2

Number: 2

Start page: 73

End page: 166

Return to vol. 2 no. 2 index page

1. Introduction

1.1 Preface

Most educational theory is generalised and not tied to any specific subject area. The PRS-LTSN¹ has ‘recognised that, in comparison with other subject areas, very little has been published about teaching at HE level in philosophical and religious studies’.² This project is a response to that lack. The intention is to provide a preliminary view of group learning/teaching in RS by looking at how the overall learning/teaching culture affects teaching in small groups. It attempts:

to consider the trends and patterns of group learning/teaching practice;
to contextualise group learning/teaching in relation to the overall culture of learning/teaching in RS departments;
to highlight innovative group learning/teaching practice;
to suggest possible strategies for group learning/teaching.

The project consists of three parts:

a quantitative or general survey of learning/teaching in RS departments;
a set of case studies consisting of questionnaires, class observations, and interviews (of teachers and their students) in three RS departments;³
an interpretation of results, conclusions and suggestions.

1.2. Key concerns of RS

The questionnaires and case studies are broad-ranging and suggestive. They make no claims to be scientific or prescriptive. They have been designed using education theory on learning/teaching styles and on teaching in small groups and constitute a first attempt to compare attitudes against practice, looking at some of the complex inter-relational overlaps between the different learning/teaching styles of teachers and students. Some preliminary conclusions have been drawn from the broad patterns which have emerged.4 This is a halting step towards understanding the problems involved in group learning/teaching in RS. Some of the key concerns highlighted in the PRS-LTSN survey, 2001, have been incorporated into both the survey and its conclusions, in particular:

the importance of critical thinking;
student-led discussion in student-centred learning;
key skills and employability in a non-vocational discipline.⁵

The research sets out, at both the design level and in its conclusions, to relate the relevance of these key concerns to the role of group learning in overall learning/teaching strategies.

1.3. Critical thinking and group learning

The prioritisation of critical thinking is one thing that distinguishes RS from other disciplines. This was highlighted in the PRS-LTSN questionnaire in 2001:

One of the more distinctive features of our disciplines is an emphasis on critical thinking, rather than on the mere absorption of facts or the acquisition of technical skills.⁶

As a discipline, we aim to encourage students in the development of the ‘more elusive skills’⁷ that are essential to the kind of critical thinking specifically required in our discipline.

the development of the students’ intellectual skills;
the comprehension of key concepts;⁸
the ability to critically analyse and interpret key ideas and issues.

As well as the ability to critically read primary texts and to assimilate difficult abstract concepts, students must develop an ability to question and to relate difficult materials and concepts to previous knowledge and experience. They have to learn how to demonstrate the synthesis of these skills in the presentation of arguments (both verbal and written).

But how are these skills best taught? Or, alternatively, how are these skills best learned? Ramsden describes the ‘depressing picture [that] emerges from studies of the quality of students’ understanding … It seems that many students often do not change their understanding in the way that lecturers would wish.’⁹ Student-centred approaches to learning/teaching encourage us, as practitioners, to look at education through their eyes. As active discussion by students in formalised group situations is undoubtedly a major constituent in the RS HE educational process, closer scrutiny of the joint experience of group learning/teaching may help to understand how students will develop their skills in three qualitatively different areas:¹⁰

acquiring knowledge;
thinking critically;
thinking as a theologian, biblical scholar, philosopher etc.

I have considered the status of group learning in the overall process of learning/teaching in RS because it is in this particular learning/teaching environment that the development and expression of critical thinking can be most visibly observed and shared by teachers and students. One of the clearest results of the general survey to teachers in RS, is that critical thinking is our most highly prized development aim. In 80% of departments surveyed, this was rated our highest priority.¹¹ Paul Ramsden suggests that the most important competence in academic disciplines can be summed up as the development of ‘understanding’. He adds:

By understanding, I mean the way in which students apprehend and discern phenomena related to the subject, rather than what they know about them or how they can manipulate them.¹²

But what part does group discussion and interactivity play in its development?

In the survey results, 85% of teachers see group work and discussion as the best means to develop critical thinking and a personal sense of reality.¹³ This adds weight to David Jacques’ statement that:

Teaching and learning in small groups has a valuable part to play in the all-round education of students. It allows them to negotiate meanings, to express themselves in the language of the subject, and to establish a more intimate contact with academic staff than more formal methods permit. It also develops the more instrumental skills of listening, presenting ideas and persuading.¹⁴

Small group learning (a teaching strategy of working with groups of less than 30 students)15 seems, therefore, to provide the perfect learning/teaching format in which students will be able learn what we want them to learn—that is, the development of an understanding of our subject in the way that the RS discipline understands it.

Traditionally, however, group learning/teaching has been used as an adjunct to lectures. Often viewed as less demanding, requiring fewer skills as well as less informational or authoritative than lectures, this approach would not seem to prioritise group learning. ¹⁶ A range of typical problems are associated with the practice of group learning/teaching. These can be summarised as follows:

Students show a reluctance to discuss issues.
Students tend to respond only when directly questioned by a teacher.
Students do not prepare for sessions (except when giving presentations).
One or two students dominate discussion.
Students expect solutions to problems to be provided by the teacher rather than through their own discussion.¹⁷
The teacher dominates to the point of discouraging dialogue.

These problems, I suspect, will be recognisable to anyone who has applied group learning/teaching techniques and yet I am convinced that imaginative group learning/teaching practice that encourages the dynamic interactivity between peers (and tutors) offers one of the most potentially effective tools of learning/teaching.

1.4. Teaching styles and group learning

According to Ramsden the types of problem outlined above reflect a particular type of teaching style. This is called the transmission or transfer theory, in which teachers’ overriding concern is to instil in students the subject content.¹⁸ According to this theory the teacher is viewed as ‘the source of undistorted information’, which the student will observe, absorb, assimilate and emulate through individual effort. The lecture provides the bed-rock of learning whilst in individual study the student will learn to understand and evaluate the subject content.¹⁹ This will be articulated in, and assessed by, written essays and examination questions. Discussion may help in this process but only in so far as the individual student is prepared to make contributions to it. To what extent does Ramsden’s transmission or transfer model of teaching represent the dominant RS teaching practice?

There is a second, related theory of teaching in which the teacher aims to ‘shape’ student learning and which Ramsden suggests may equally create those problems typically encountered in group learning/teaching. In the shaping model, the teacher articulates the techniques required to learn and then supervises the learning process, aiming to provide a fail-safe set of methods. In this theory, as long as students follow the procedures, reflection, understanding and the application of knowledge will be the natural outcome of their application. Ramsden, however, sees this approach to teaching as ‘about extending a lecturer’s repertoire of techniques rather than changing his or her understanding’ of the learning/teaching process. ²⁰

Few would like to think that they have not moved away from traditional transfer or shaping models of teaching. Does RS teaching practice in any way reflect these models? The following extract from the PRS-LTSN document on major grant areas highlights some of our key concerns about discussion:

PRS disciplines lay greater stress than most on the importance of active discussion by students; but one of the most difficult problems faced by teachers is that of creating a framework within which fruitful discussion will take place. New students (especially some international students) are used to an educational model in which they are given information by teachers as authority figures. How can they be brought round to accepting a reversal of roles? How can students be trained in the art of contributing effectively to discussion in different ways, such as chairing, minute-taking, and making positive contributions in accordance with different personality types? What techniques are there for ensuring that students arrive in the discussion room primed with the necessary information and ideas? What is the role of student-only discussions, and how should they be managed? What use can be made of hybrid methods, such as buzz-groups within a lecture? Is it possible to devise a fair, objective, and unburdensome way of assessing student performance in discussion? How should one handle equal opportunities issues over less assertive students, or those whose culture discourages independent thinking, especially on religious, moral, or philosophical issues? How should one deal with offensive or insensitive interventions, whether or not the teacher is present?²¹

This statement highlights the genuine concern to improve learning/teaching in groups (with a particular emphasis on student-led discussion in group work). Implicit in the concerns expressed above, is the desire to move away from transfer or shaping teaching types towards what Ramsden terms as a ‘compound view of instruction’ in which teaching is seen as ‘a process of working cooperatively with learners to help them change their understanding.’²² The survey results, however, indicate that many of us have not changed as much as we might like to think.²³

1.5. Learning styles and group learning

The statement on page 78 highlights the other side of the learning/teaching equation—that of student attitudes to learning. Student expectations of learning/teaching may equally contribute to difficulties in group learning and confound attempts to change practice. The attitudes and learning experiences of the students, prior to entry into HE have a significant impact on how students behave in groups. These contribute to the kind of mismatch between expectations and outcomes in learning/teaching in groups expressed in Ramsden’s list of problems. The individual learning style of students is, therefore, as important as our own teaching styles.

According to Ramsden, the development of critical thinking is only achieved when a ‘deep’ approach to learning is taken by students. Deep learning strategies lead to ‘higher quality outcomes and better grades.’²⁴ A deep approach to learning is constituted by the desire to understand the meaning of texts and lectures, to relate ideas from one subject to another and to real-life experiences. In order to understand new ideas, the student will seek answers to questions which the course material should help to provide, enabling the synthesis and evaluation of previous material with newly acquired ideas and knowledge.²⁵ And yet, the problems expressed above suggest that many students still subscribe to a ‘surface’ approach to learning, in which recall is prioritised (i.e., the retention of factual content along with an acceptance of ‘the statements and ideas of … lecturers’) over the ability to tease out for themselves the complex implications of the subject into some sort of overall picture.²⁶ It is this learning approach that is reflected in the negative experiences of group discussion sessions outlined by Ramsden and suggested by PRSLTSN findings, suggesting that in the two-way process of learning/teaching, both teachers and students contribute to problems typically associated with group learning.

The genuine concern of RS to develop a student-centred approach to learning/teaching arises from a recognition of the importance of the development of critical thinking through discussion. If group learning works best, as Jacques and Ramsden suggest, when it encourages student-centred learning, are we employing the kinds of techniques that help students to learn what we want them to learn? If not, what can we do to improve our practice?

1.6. Education theory on group learning/teaching

In order to analyse the source of problems in learning/teaching in groups, it is helpful to understand what is meant by a group. This section defines the term, considers the group dynamics and looks at how best to achieve results when working with small groups. David Jacques suggests that, A group can be said to exist as more than a collection of people when it possesses the following qualities:

Collective perception: members are collectively conscious of their existence as a group.
Needs: members join a group because they believe it will satisfy some needs or give them some rewards.
Shared aims: members hold common aims or ideals that to some extent bind them together. The achievement of aims is presumably one of the rewards.
Interdependence: members are interdependent inasmuch as they are affected by and respond to any event that affects any of the group’s members.
Social organization: a group can be seen as a social unit with norms, roles, statuses, power and emotional relationships.
Interaction: members influence and respond to each other in the process of communicating whether they are face to face or otherwise deployed. The sense of ‘group’ exists even when members are not collected in the same place.
Cohesiveness: members want to remain in the group, to contribute to its well-being and aims, and to join in its activities.
Membership: two or more people interacting for more than a few minutes constitute a group.²⁷

Jacques points out that whilst no single characteristic defines a group, each one constitutes an important aspect of the group dynamic. Group activity can be summarised, therefore, as essentially consisting of an interaction between members, in which members manifest the ‘need to influence, share and be responded to’.²⁸

Jacques is providing a definition of the group in its broadest, generic sense. It could refer to any RS department, as the group is defined by the type of social organisation in which clear norms, roles and statuses in any type of learning/teaching situation are first and foremost constituted by membership to the departmental group discipline. After all, the dissemination of RS must be a shared aim and a prerequisite to membership of any RS department. According to this description, any of our teaching activities, from the teacher-led lecture (with or without discussion) the one-to-one tutorial, the group discussion to the traditional seminar involves elements of this definition. This helpful reminder highlights that group activities are, in some sense, central to all learning/teaching processes. Understanding this helps to clarify those aspects of the group such as its perceptions of itself, its shared aims, the interdependence of its members, as well as its social organisation and membership. Whereas learning/teaching aims and outcomes will vary according to the type of group teaching strategy selected, all learning/teaching is group learning/teaching. It provides a sense of the overarching rationale of the whole RS group constituency in which smaller learning/teaching forms are situated. Within the broad generic definition of the group, discussion constitutes one form of activity within the whole. It will tend to take place in small groups. A small group is defined by Ramsden as ‘any teaching strategy involving up to 30 students where student participation is expected’.²⁹ This form is most commonly used as a supplement to a lecture series and is at its most successful when the teaching strategy has been selected to reflect specific goals.³⁰ These will normally be motivated by specific aims in student learning that involve discourse. Relating this to Jacques’ definition of the group, small groups will tend to reflect the characteristics of interdependency (between teachers and students), interaction, cohesiveness within the same shared needs and aims. In this sense, small group learning, what happens beyond the classroom can be as important as what happens in the classroom, as responsibilities to the group are at play even when its members are not collected together.

At its simplest, any small group will include the following elements:

the encouragement of skills that connect knowledge to thinking critically about issues arising out of the subject;
the sharing and communication of ideas and questions.

At this level, a collegiate approach is expected from the group members but it does not necessarily (at least, not from Jacques’ definition above) imply a collaborative one. Individual students may be expected to prepare and present papers, or to play a part in a formal debate, whilst their remaining colleagues are expected to respond critically in a general discussion. But this need not involve collaboration as such. Individual and surface learning approaches may still persist, as may tutor-centredness.³¹

At a more complex level, small groups provide students with the opportunity:

to learn cooperatively (individual tasks and ideas contributing to a team effort, both in and beyond the classroom);
to develop a sense of joint responsibility.

For the teacher they provide the opportunity:

to share ideas with students;
to hear and see the way in which students set out to understand their subject;
to observe how they relate ideas across from one topic to another, how they question the material that has been presented to them and how, in turn they present their ideas, problems and conclusions to other members of the group, including the tutor;
to learn from students.

Ultimately, and ideally, this more complex view of small group learning will lead to ‘a gradual shift away from dependence [on the tutor] to independence [between the tutor and the student]’ and reflect a deep learning strategy.³²

It is at this level that the stated needs of employers are most clearly related to group learning practice. Their demand for wellrounded, adaptable people with a grounding in high-level analytical skills, able to learn within a team, would seem to invite the development of skills that involve working both with and alongside each other to agreed goals. Whereas students may still prepare independently beyond the classroom, in this approach, they are encouraged to relate their personal findings to those of their teacher and their peers. A collaboration is developed between teachers and students, in which teachers cooperate with learners in the planning and distribution of tasks (within clearly defined roles) as well as in the class discourse. A prerequisite in small group learning of this type is the achievement of a consensus on the accepted aims of the production, assimilation, distillation, evaluation, and finally, the presentation and defence of material within a more or less formal discourse. In small group learning/teaching, listening and spoken skills are tested within the group as well as the ability to present material formally and informally.

The kind of process in which students and teachers work together is recognised in the Dearing Report³³, where it asserts that student-centred learning

… requires information and the opportunity to engage in ‘learning conversations’ with staff and other students in order to understand and be able to use new concepts in a particular field. (8.6)

Group learning activity seems, therefore, to be best reflected by Ramsden’s third theory of teaching in which ‘the subject content is actively constituted by the learner … [and where] [l]earning is [understood as] applying and modifying one’s own ideas’ and where the teacher works cooperatively with the learner to facilitate that process.³⁴ Whilst Jacques’ generic definition of the group reflects any component of learning/teaching (including personal study) and is able to accommodate traditional transfer and shaping teaching theories, small group learning/teaching seems to reflect Ramsden’s compound view of learning/teaching in which the learning needs of the students can be brought together. It would also seem to develop the types of transferable skills demanded by the needs of a wider world.

Ramsden’s definition of a small group is one that numbers no more than thirty. Lecture formats and those seminar groups arranged around general discussion and individual presentations, often accommodate larger numbers and whilst they may seem to allow greater pedagogic control and leadership, these larger groups have been shown to develop tensions due to fragmentation, greater anonymity and passivity amongst the students. It is more difficult for the teacher to differentiate between different types of learners. Both teachers and students may be prone to project a sense of hostility or to stereotyping of one another. This introduces the issue of increases in both the type and number of students. For some of us, the desire to introduce effective small group learning formats may simply increase pressures on learning/teaching structures and formats. This is acknowledged by Jacques who states the limits imposed on educational procedures by logistics, such as disposition and availability of rooms and timetabling of other classes, frequently make the reality of curriculum development an untidy compromise. More often than not, educational ideals are decimated by timetables which organize course programmes into a fragmented collection of learning experiences for the student and give a similar sense of disconnectedness to the teachers.³⁵

As in its various forms, group learning involves a spectrum of factors such as, authority, dependency, responsibility, boundaries and the potential for projected hostility, the size of groups in relation to all of these factors will affect the characteristics of group dynamics. It is, therefore, fair to say that size matters.³⁶ According to Jacques, larger groups make it more difficult to encourage committed interactivity in discussion.³⁷ Smaller groups, however, make it easier to develop a sense of cohesion and trust and in these circumstances greater commitment to and a higher level of discussion are shown to result. A group of seven or less will cohere more easily than a group of more than seven. In the larger small group, clear structural parameters, role differentiation and positive leadership are necessary to help the group to work effectively together.

One way round the issue of size is to break the group up into smaller units within the classroom. Jacques comments that

[c]ontemporary life places a premium on the ability of people to get on with each other, to be able to handle interpersonal problems rather than to avoid them, and to do so constructively and creatively. Nowhere is it more possible to practice these qualities than in small-group work when learning is not subject purely to academic limitations.³⁸

Within the broader context, what Jacques reflects what employers require from graduates. Jacques and Ramsden suggest that we can expect to see an improvement in student-centred learning if compound teaching theory is applied to deep learning strategies.³⁹ Learning/teaching in small groups will benefit everyone, if skills’ development is considered to be as important to learning as the subject content.

1.7. The broader context of learning/teaching: critical thinking, transferable skills and employability in nonvocational careers

According to Ramsden, research on the attitude of employers on the value of graduates demonstrates that the majority … seemed to think that higher education did improve their employees’ general skills. They believed that it enhanced academic ability and personal qualities, especially flexibility and motivations; they supported educational experiences that increased general understanding.⁴⁰ A relatively small percentage of RS students remain in higher education after taking undergraduate courses. Whilst employers of professional graduates expect them to come to them equipped with an in-depth knowledge of their subject, recruiters of graduates from nonvocational courses look for a combination of the ability to think critically and those skills needed to be able to work within corporate and team structures. The transferable key skills developed in group learning/teaching are, thus, seen as essential to the world of work beyond the academic institution.

These skills include:

recognition and solving of problems;
generation of creative solutions;
prioritisation of tasks;
managing time and work;
open-mindedness to new ideas;
commitment to self-development;
development of good working relationships;
development of networks;
presenting a positive attitude to others;
effective and accurate exchange of information;
different techniques of communication;
active contributions (e.g., negotiating, influencing, receiving and giving feedback).⁴¹

These expectations demonstrate how the ability to think critically connects pragmatically to the type of skills that are best acquired in group learning activities and situates them in the wider context of nonvocational work. The needs and expectations of employers are further reflected in the following statement taken from the ‘Dearing Report’⁴²

Employers emphasised to us in their evidence the importance of high level analytical skills. The development of such skills characterises higher education, and should continue to be one of its primary purposes. Indeed, many employers are seeking individuals with highly specialised knowledge and skills … But employers are also concerned about the general capabilities and potential of those with higher education qualifications, not just about the subject they have studied. The recruitment patterns of employers demonstrate that they are often looking for rounded but adaptable people who can successfully tackle a range of tasks and be effective members of a team …[after all], for many years over 40 per cent of jobs advertised for graduates in the UK have been open to applicants from most, if not all, disciplines.⁴³

The ability to work both independently and co-operatively is seen to assist, not only in the student’s ability to process his/her own understanding his/her specialist subject (research, analysis, critical reflection, problem-solving, synthesis, reporting back and so on), but also in his/her ability to negotiate and develop personal strategies that recognise the benefits of working within a critical environment with corporate aims, whether or not academic. This wider context presents RS teachers with the challenge to find innovative ways to encourage students to learn the importance of both critical thinking and group or team skills, without compromising the academic aims and outcomes of our own discipline. It is within this wider context that the need to think about group learning is situated throughout the project.

1.8. Pressures and challenges

The assessment of the quality of teaching by the Quality Assurance Agency is an area that challenges teachers to introduce innovative teaching practice. The ‘Dearing Report’ is another. In the recommendations in Dearing which form part of the wider context of teaching in HE, the link between the institution and the world beyond is unequivocally stressed in its summary:

It should, therefore, be a national policy objective to be world class both in learning at all levels and in a range of research of different kinds. In higher education, this aspiration should be realised through a new compact involving institutions and their staff, students, government, employers and society in general. We see the historic boundaries between vocational and academic education breaking down, with increasingly active partnerships between higher education institutions and the worlds of industry, commerce and public service. In such a compact, each party should recognise its obligation to the others.⁴⁴

Whilst this challenge seems to offer opportunities to develop partnerships with the world beyond the institution, it also places real pressures on us all through an expansion of our frame of reference with regard to learning/teaching in RS, in which there are demands to think about how the content and method of our teaching relates to nonvocational careers beyond the institution. These expansions have created a generally increased expectation for researchers and teachers to understand the broader context in which RS is situated. Simultaneous to this, teachers are expected to produce research to an international standard in order to maintain or increase their funding. The balance between high-level research and professional teaching, administrative and management skills, thus, becomes ever harder to strike.

This is accurately reflected in the chapter on teaching, in which the Dearing Report states that a current barrier to improvement in teaching exists and in which

… staff perceive national and institutional policies as actively encouraging and recognising excellence in research, but not in teaching. Although the teaching quality assessments (TQA) carried out by the Funding Bodies, which are designed to measure the effectiveness of teaching, have raised the profile of teaching within institutions, the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) has been a stronger influence and has deflected attention away from learning and teaching towards research. An analysis of the impact of the 1992 RAE in higher education institutions in England suggests that it has devalued teaching because research assessment is closely linked to the allocation of large sums of money, whereas teaching assessment is not.⁴⁵

Whilst this correctly reflects the concerns of the profession, George MacDonald Ross has subsequently pointed out that: It is fair to say that the Government rejected most of the recommendations which implied increased Government funding (student support and academic salaries), and accepted those which merely meant more work for academics.⁴⁶ The lack of real incentives to innovate in teaching is a potentially demoralising factor in which the changing face of higher education is placing enormous demands on all teachers without offering any motivation or increase in rewards. Pressures include the increase in numbers of students, many more of whom are mature students who, although often equipped with practical non-vocational work experience and a high level of transferable skills, bring their own challenges to teaching, such as different backgrounds, less formal qualifications, and a variable approach to learning. There are more part-timers, as well as increasing numbers of students who have to work to support themselves financially during their time in HE. Teachers have to re-contextualise RS learning/teaching, in order to take all of these changes into account.⁴⁷ In all of this, it is no longer enough to produce students with a recognised accreditation in RS. The challenge (and subsequent pressure) is to demonstrate the relevance of the development of rigorous analytical skills to a broader application of transferable skills, in particular, within teams. These factors form part of the wider context into which learning/teaching in general, but arguably group learning in particular, is now situated. Critical thinking, student-centred and group learning, and the development of transferable skills for non-vocational careers all overlap.

The prioritisation of these issues in the PRS-LTSN survey, however, demonstrates a willingness to share information in order to improve our own teaching practice. Part of this process is the ability to understand our attitudes to group learning in the overall strategies on learning/teaching as, in an increasingly challenging and pressurised environment, we question how to incorporate them into our own teaching programmes, in a way that is meaningful to the wider world and to our own academic practice (without reducing the recognisably high standards for which our discipline is known).

2. Project Outline

The focus of the survey is consistently on teaching form, not content. Its interest in group learning/teaching, in relation to overall learning/teaching policies, allows the relative status of group learning to be evaluated against alternative or dominant strategies of teaching. The project, therefore, set out to evaluate whether the concerns of RS departments and their teachers are matched by practice. Group learning by its nature, demands of students a deep approach to learning. Of teachers, it requires a compound view of teaching theory in which attention is placed on both the student and the teacher. Here, as Ramsden is at pains to point out,

Teaching is comprehended as a process of working cooperatively with learners to help them change their understanding. It is making student learning possible…The content to be taught, and students’ problems with learning it, direct the methods he or she uses. ⁴⁸

Whilst student-centred learning is in this theory extremely important, so too, is the ability of the teacher to intervene, guide and act as a catalyst in that process. Throughout, therefore, the questions attempt to ascertain to what extent group learning is seen as an effective tool in developing that cooperative relationship. An important question was the degree to which the planning and design of courses in relation to student learning and transferable key skills is left to individual teachers or whether departmental strategies exist to demonstrate the integration and monitoring of progressive planning of student learning and key skills. Another was the extent to which we can be certain that students are given a progressive and considered structure of learning/teaching over three levels which guarantee the inclusion of all transferable key skills.⁴⁹

2.1. Format

The first part of the project consisted of a general questionnaire sent out to individual teachers in thirty-five out of forty-nine departments of RS listed in the Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies’ Handbook, 2001.⁵⁰ Questions about teaching styles and methods were based on the education theories outlined above and aimed:⁵¹

to acquire a broad view of the culture of RS departments with regard to learning/teaching;
to gain a view of departmental learning/teaching strategies;
to examine individual perceptions and practice of learning/teaching;
to contextualise attitudes to group learning within the whole of RS learning/teaching. The results have been presented in percentage form in tables. They have then been interpreted in such a way as to prioritise those concerns set out in the introduction—that is to say,
- the importance of critical thinking;
- student-led discussion in student-centred learning;
- key skills and employability in a non-vocational discipline.⁵²
The questionnaire⁵³ is made up of 50 questions divided into 3 sections. The first and third sections look at the cultural philosophy of departments and their corporate approach to undergraduate learning/teaching practice. Participants were asked to rank or prioritise the constituent parts of their respective RS departments.⁵⁴ These two sections have been drawn together in the results. They cover the following:
- general aims of an RS department;
- departmental vision;
- departmental strategies on learning/teaching;
- patterns of learning/teaching practice;
- group learning practice.
The remaining section considers the views of the individual teacher on his/her own learning/teaching practice. It is divided up as follows:
- aims of teachers;
- characteristics of and influences on teachers;
- skills needed to fulfil those aims;
- how those aims are best achieved;
- teaching formats;
- assessment priorities;
- considerations in the development of course programmes;⁵⁵
- group learning.
In presenting the results of the survey, the sections have been organised sequentially.⁵⁶
A questionnaire of this size could be analysed and interpreted in a variety of ways. In this report, I have opted to look for patterns and trends that will provide a broad view of the following:
- the cultural pattern of RS departments as a whole;
- learning/teaching practice;
- the place of group learning in departmental strategies.
Questions asked participants either:
- to rate particular issues in rank order;
- to flag the most important areas in learning/teaching;
- to indicate methods and techniques most commonly used;
- to indicate the existence of support systems and strategies.
In the analysis, a percentage rate has been provided for each question with rankings according to prioritisation.⁵⁷ Although we have received returns from a cross-section of types of department, individual institutions or types of institution have not been singled out for scrutiny in the presentation of results.⁵⁸ The sample was too small to draw clear conclusions about differences between types of institution and anonymity was an important consideration in the presentation of results.
The second part of the research consisted of a qualitative study of the learning/teaching practice gained through observations of classes in which group learning/teaching took place. It aimed to provide a window on group learning/teaching practice, in which teachers and students are given a voice. Once again, the intention has been to contextualise and evaluate group learning within the context of the whole learning/teaching process.

Participants were drawn from volunteers from the Universities of Exeter, Bristol and the University College of St Mark and St John, Plymouth.⁵⁹ All three levels are represented.⁶⁰

The University of Exeter’s participation consisted mainly of students from Levels 1 and 2.⁶¹ The first year class was in Old Testament studies. This represented the whole year’s intake, including some students in Classics. The Level2 class was again in Old Testament Studies. Both courses are compulsory. The University of Bristol’s participation consisted of Levels 2 and 3, one in Biblical Parables, one in Islamic Studies. These courses are optional. The University College of St Mark and St John’s participation consisted of a Level 3 course in Christian Ethics. It is an optional course.

The case studies consisted of:
- observation of group learning practice ‘in action’;
- interviews with staff and students about group learning within the context of the whole learning/teaching picture;
- a questionnaire to students on their attitudes and experience of learning/teaching;
- feedback forms on group learning experiences and learning journals.⁶²
The case studies are designed to counter-balance any tendency to lose sight of the issues surrounding actual group learning/teaching practice. They provide a window on the benefits, as well as the problems of learning/teaching in groups, from the perspective of both students and staff. In interviews, participants were encouraged to articulate, not only their experiences, but also their ideas for improving practice. The three departments represent a cross-section of RS types.
The student questionnaire is in five parts:
- perceptions of the group learning process;
- perceptions of the teaching process;
- perceptions of key study skills needed in group learning ;
- the learning/teaching methods of the students’ own;
- the students’ past and present experience of key study skills;
- support mechanisms available to help them develop these further;
The analysis seeks out:
- general patterns from which to evaluate the status of group learning/teaching in the overall strategies of RS learning/teaching;
- an overall picture of the predominant techniques used in group learning;
- the predominant attitudes of students to group learning, again emphasising the key concerns outlined in the introduction.
The final part of the study interprets the results, raises questions and presents suggestions on innovative group learning/teaching practice drawn, in the main, from the case studies.
2.2. Interpreting results

The project is very much a first attempt to understand and contextualise the traditions, changes and concerns of our discipline in which group learning can only ever be considered as one part of a whole. In interpreting the findings, levels of agreement, continuity and coherence between individual practice and departmental norms have been flagged, as have apparent mismatches between aims and practice. The case studies have been used to demonstrate the value of taking a nuanced and innovative approach to group learning in relation to the planning and structuring of overall learning/teaching strategies and to affirm its positive effect on individual and interpersonal transferable skills.

2.3. Summary of results
The overall results of the survey on teaching and learning (within which group learning is contextualised) indicate that, of the RS departments surveyed, individual teachers are, in the majority of cases, left to decide their own teaching strategies from within an informal understanding of the corporate whole.⁶³
Most teachers see the discussion as the best forum for developing critical thinking and the majority surveyed believe that the role of teaching is to make learning possible (clearly reflecting a positive attitude to student-centred learning). Approaches to group learning/teaching show that whilst group learning formats constitute an important part of the overall teaching strategy in seminars, in most cases, traditional teaching theories still predominate. Lectures, with seminars as an adjunct, still constitute the dominant teaching method. Small group work is found in the seminar, as part of a larger lecture series and typically involves a variety of in-class group methods such as, fishbowl and buzz word sessions. RS learning/teaching seems, therefore, to reflect the dominance of tutor-led, transfer and shaping teaching styles that limit a student’s ability to engage in the subject or to actively constitute the knowledge of the subject matter by applying and modifying his/her own ideas according to his/her own experience of the world.⁶⁴ This is further reflected in a learning/teaching pattern that prioritises individual learning over corporate or compound learning in which a genuine balance is struck between group and individual learning, suggesting that the enthusiasm for student-centred learning is not matched by employment of methods to foster this.

Throughout the project, students’ understanding of the learning process was found to be broadly in line with that of the teachers, with few taking an interest in the relationship between transferable skills, group learning and their future careers. Whilst most are happy enough to work in groups, the majority prefer to study on their own and are uncertain about the prospect of assessed syndicate projects. However, like their teachers, most students think that group learning activities are extremely beneficial to their personal development of interpersonal skills. They also consider group learning to be an important environment for the development of critical thinking. Few, however, prioritise group over individual learning practice. Clearly, in their experience as undergraduates, they had developed an understanding of the learning/teaching process which reflected the teaching methods that they experienced in RSHE learning/teaching. Furthermore, whilst most had experienced a broad range of group learning techniques prior to entering HE, it is clear that, in most cases, group learning had rarely been prioritised at this stage in their education.⁶⁵ And although syndicate work had formed part of many students’ previous experience, in few cases did it form part of the assessment process.

From these results, it is possible to suggest that, whilst the development of critical thinking in our students is considered to be the main teaching aim, our teaching methods will tend to produce a considerable variation in the quality and quantity of skills’ achievement in this key area. Our teaching methods, are still, in the main, tutor-led, our learning, centred on the individual working alone. Further, whilst employers are looking for well-rounded people with the ability to think critically and who are able to use this ability to work in teams, there is little evidence that teachers are incorporating into course planning the relevance of these kinds of transferable skills on future employability in non-vocational careers. Nor is it clear that they relate the development of interpersonal skills through group activities either to improvements in overall learning practice or to the wider world of work.

3. Results
The staff survey was distributed to individual teachers in 35 of the 49 RS departments in AUDTRS.⁶⁶ Replies were received from seventeen institutions, with multiple returns in several cases. This represents 49% of the sample.⁶⁷ The return reflects the broad scope of RS departmental types. However, in at least 65%, Christian theology is the central focus, even where World Religions form an important part of the curriculum.⁶⁸ Only 25% concentrate on World Religions without this focus.
3.1. RS culture
The ranking system of the questionnaire provides a means to interpret how a department prioritises its constituent parts to give a view of the vision, aims and outlook of its organisation.69 Areas considered:
- the production of specialist research;
- teaching in specialist areas;
- administration and management;
- development of teaching skills;
- development of learning skills;
- development of a departmental strategy on teaching and learning.
According to their general aims, 90% of the sample considered the production and teaching of specialist research subject areas to be the highest priority. This was followed by the provision of a learning environment to agreed goals (60%) in which good communication between staff and students is developed (50%). 50% of respondents considered the development of student learning skills to be the next most important criterion but the clear provision of student key skills training was considered less important at 30%. The development of individual staff teaching skills was rated at 15%. The provision of a clear departmental strategy⁷⁰ on learning/teaching was considered to be a key priority by 25%. Within this, staff leadership was rated at 15% and the provision of clear interrogation and review strategies at 5%. Whilst the departmental strategy on learning/teaching is not the first priority of most departments, 65% of the sample have one⁷¹ with regular updates by 60%. Administration and management was only rated by 25% of the sample as a key priority.

Departmental patterns of learning/teaching: These have been subdivided into the following areas:
- learning/teaching aims and priorities;
- overall patterns of learning/teaching;
- group learning/teaching;
- training and reviews.
Learning aims: When it comes to learning aims, 80% of the sample ranked the development of critical thinking highest, followed by the ability to understand abstract concepts (35%). The need to acquire and reproduce knowledge (25%), understand and apply methodologies, and to synthesise these through a personal understanding of the world (25%) all undergird critical thinking, but are seen as less important.⁷² Teaching priorities: Specialist knowledge of the tutors (65%) and clear course design (50%) outrank assessment procedures (30%) or the requirement for learning skills in students (25%). Numbers in classes are not an issue and the relevance of key skills to academic practice and future careers is only seen as a priority in 5% of departments.⁷³ In planning courses, only 25% of departments actively discuss how to vary course content against student levels and learning skills whilst in 50% this is somewhat considered and in a further 25% it is hardly considered at all.⁷⁴
Learning/teaching formats:⁷⁵ 65% of the sample reflects that teaching formats are dominated by the lecture or tutor-led groups of one kind or another. Overall, 75% of departments surveyed teach traditional formats of lecture series and additional seminars, in which general discussion (35%) or individual student presentations (40%) are the norm. Only 15% ask students to give group presentations. 40% rate tutorials as a key format for achieving learning aims. 50% of courses are organised along cognitive, linear lines.⁷⁶ 20% use discursive formats. 10% encouraged students to relate issues to their own experience. 5% of the sample run seminar-only courses, with mini-lectures and group presentations. Other seminar-only formats are not regularly used.⁷⁷ Lectures with seminars in which papers are individually presented by students followed by general discussion are the most common learning/teaching formats in use (40%).

Individual learning is prioritised over group learning.⁷⁸ 60% organise courses with the individual learner in mind, but 30% apply a combination of group and individual learning. 10% have no clear strategy on learning,⁷⁹ whereas 15% of the sample have a recognisable strategy on group learning and a further 15% show little interest in it.⁸⁰ Only 20% of the sample include learning contracts as part of their standard teaching procedures.⁸¹

Group learning
The formats most regularly used in departments are that of open discussion in seminars (100%), followed by informal individual presentations with a class handout (60%) or formal individual presentations (50%). 40% of departments incorporate formal group presentations, and a further 15%, informal group presentations. 80% of departments tend towards a tutor-led format.⁸² Having said this, 75% of departments have some sort of student-led sessions, 50% of which are student-centred.
In sessions in which discussion dominates,⁸³ the most common form (60%) of in-class group work is the ‘fishbowl’⁸⁴. A further 50% use brainstorming sessions to elicit discussion, whereas only 30% use snowballing⁸⁵ or step-by-step discussion techniques. Buzz word sessions, crossover groups⁸⁶ or peer tutoring techniques, are used in a minority of cases (25%, 20% and 20%).

Training and Reviews: 20% of the sample indicate that their departments had a clear ongoing staff development plan. 35% of departments discuss learning/teaching policies in staff recruitment interviews.⁸⁷ Learning/teaching strategies were discussed in 65% of staff/student meetings.

75% had policies in which staff training was organised along purely voluntary lines and 5% had no ongoing programmes available to them at all. 10% had no clear formal training programmes or formats. Of those departments in which training is available, the dominant areas for development were in assessment (40%) and group learning/teaching (35%), lecturing and tutorials (15%).

With regard to student development,⁸⁸ 65% of departmental Student Handbooks contain some sort of information on the key skills that students will require and 80% have details in course outlines. 85% of RS departments have recourse to a Study Skills Centre. 15% refer their students to this on a regular basis, but 30% never refer students. Only 65% of departments have a clear referral strategy, and the majority of referrals are for essay skills and private study. None of the sample refer students for the development of individual or group presentation skills.

Many departments have their own skills guides⁸⁹ on some aspects of learning, where individual skills are prioritised: essay writing (75%), examination techniques (35%), note-taking (33%), private study (25%). Few departments have guides on critical reading (15%), individual or group presentations (10%, 15%), or tutorials (5%). 55% of departments hold some sort of key skills events that encourage students to work corporately.

3.2. Personal perceptions of teaching practice

This section⁹⁰ required participants to prioritise their own perceptions of learning/teaching with regard to their own practice.⁹¹ Areas considered:
- influences, styles and skills in teaching
- aims in the development of student learning and skills
- teaching methods
- group learning/teaching
- feedback and assessment
Influences, characteristics and skills in teaching⁹²
In 65% of the sample, teachers considered that their own teaching style was the dominant influence on their approach to teaching. 25% were most influenced by education theory and training. 10% followed what they perceived as the teaching characteristics of the department. When asked to describe their teaching style,⁹³ most of the sample thought of themselves as guides (30%) or catalysts (40%). 10% saw themselves as transferring knowledge and 20% saw themselves as shaping or training students.
Ranked in order⁹⁴, the most important attributes of a teacher were seen as the ability to encourage individual learning (65%), followed by encouragement of group learning (45%). These were ranked above the tutor’s own specialist knowledge (40%) and the ability to assess work (50%). The ability to lecture well was seen by only 15% as the most important attribute of a tutor.⁹⁵ This was further confirmed in the ranking in which 75% of the sample rated most highly the ability to encourage independent thinking followed by the ability to facilitate independent and group learning (60%) and to lead class discussion (45%).⁹⁶ This is further corroborated in that 90% of the sample described their style in the delivery of material to students as incorporating their own perspectives (40%), or as a combination of their own perspective linked to a value-neutral approach (50%).⁹⁷ In 55% of the sample, a clear course outline was rated more highly than the ability to lecture in a charismatic way (40%) followed by the need for clear topic handouts (40%).

Aims in the development of student learning and skills:⁹⁸ In the development of student learning attitudes varied. Making sense of reality in a way that is relevant personally was seen as the most important aim in the categories provided. 30% of the sample saw this as more important than any of the other categories. This was followed by the need to understand abstract concepts (35%). At the lowest end of the rankings, an increase in knowledge, the ability to memorise knowledge and the acquisition, retention and utilisation of facts were seen as the least important developmental aims (60%, 90% and 45%, respectively). However, a significant percentage reversed this pattern, with 25% considering an increase in knowledge as the greatest aim, equal to the acquisition, retention and utilisation of facts next in rank order, and 50% ranking an understanding of abstract concepts as least important, along with the aim to make sense of reality in a personal way (30%). In relation to perceptions on teaching styles, these results demonstrate a difference in teaching styles.

Teaching methods: In selecting teaching formats,⁹⁹ 35% of tutors take student levels greatly into account, whereas this taken somewhat into account by 60%. In planning courses, 85% of tutors believe that preclass preparation should be assigned and 35% think that learning contracts should be structured into courses.¹⁰⁰ As to teaching methods, 70% of the sample opt for lecture series linked to different seminar formats. Of these, only 30% are student-led. Seminars are dominated by traditional formats such as open discussion, debates and individual presentations. Only 10% set group presentation tasks. 25% run seminar-only sessions but only 15% of these are studentled. When looking at lecture formats, participants were asked to consider what lectures achieve best.¹⁰¹ Multiple answers rather than rankings were asked for. 55% believe that the acquisition of knowledge and 30% that skills and procedures are best developed in lectures. These both undergird transfer and shaping models of teaching. 60% of the sample thought that lectures help to develop critical thinking but only 15% see lectures as developing abstract concepts and 5%, a personal sense of reality.

Group learning/teaching: Given the definition of groups in the introduction, the questions on group learning/teaching were designed around small groups of thirty or less students. This section, therefore, considers the techniques and value of group learning/teaching within seminar formats. When asked what skills are best developed in group sets or in discussion,¹⁰² 85% of the sample thought that these forms of group learning best develop critical thinking and 60% that of a personal sense skills and procedures and 15% that of abstract concepts. None thought that group work helps to develop the acquisition or reproduction of knowledge. And, when asked how students best develop their critical thinking, the results were divided.¹⁰³ 40% believe that written assignments are better than group work in the classroom. Of the remainder, 25% see group discussion in the classroom, with a further 10% seeing discussion in personal study, as the best environment for learning how to think critically. 25% think that the tutorial is the best format for this. Overall this means that 60% see some sort of group work as best developing critical thinking. None, however, see the production of group assignments as developing this quality best. Significantly, when considering how to organise group learning/teaching, the vast majority (70% or above) take into account intellectual ability in relation to course level, student background, gender, the newness and size of the subject and student learning skills. A further 50% take into account the students’ learning type.¹⁰⁴

Feedback and assessment: When asked about areas on which feedback should be provided in tutorial groups, the following results pertained:
- critical thinking – 80%
- course content/acquisition of knowledge – 75%
- reading of primary and secondary material – 80%
- essay structure and style – 75%
- group or individual presentations – 65%
- discussion skills – 50%
This was reflected in formative assessment criteria. 100% of the sample thought that essays should be assessed. 60% thought that both formal and informal individual and group presentations should receive formative assessment and feedback, as should learning journals. 50% and 40% respectively believed that individual contributions to class discussion and tutorials should be assessed. Formal and informal presentations by groups were seen as less important (30% and 35% respectively). Again, group work was seen as less important than individual contributions of whatever kind.
Much the same applied to summative assessment, although 40% thought that group projects should be summatively assessed. There is little evidence (15%) of formal group projects being part of the learning/teaching process, however. The figures for assessment of individual written presentations went up to 70%, however, in this category and a small, but significant proportion think that summative assessment should be applied to journals (25%), individual contributions to class discussion (20%) and even to contributions to tutorials (5%).

3.3. Case studies
This part of the project aims to make the role of group learning/teaching more tangible by looking at practice in five courses across all three levels. The case studies provide a window on practice with perspectives from teachers and learners. Whilst the approach to teaching in groups is dependent on the teaching style of each teacher, the participation of three departments usefully highlights some differences between individuals and between departmental cultures.¹⁰⁵ Studies are drawn from observations, discussions with staff and students, with additional material from students on their group learning experiences.¹⁰⁶ The observation focuses on key concepts for effective group learning.
Case study 1
This consisted of two linked compulsory units in biblical studies across Levels 1 and 2.¹⁰⁷ The department has a mixed intake of students from independent and state schools, with a number of mature students at each level. There were forty students in the Level 1 class, six from other affiliated departments. There were nineteen students in the Level 2 class, the majority at Level 2. The teacher has a background in Classics and Biblical literature and has shown a concern to introduce group learning/teaching methods in order to try and improve levels of student engagement, particularly in critical reading and thinking.¹⁰⁸ Both units were being taught for the first time in seminar-only format, with syndicate work both in and beyond the classroom. Mini-lectures based round weekly handouts supplemented presentations by syndicate groups and general discussion. I observed several sessions and also participated in lesson planning, setting syndicate tasks and co-teaching. The Level 1 Course is the foundation for the Level 2/3 Course. The core learning aims of both units are to gain an overview of the complexity, formulation and breadth of the texts, with regard to ideas, practices, and ideologies. The methodological emphases are the same, but there is an increasing demand to understand the texts through an exploration of literary forms in Level 2. The intended learning outcomes at both levels are the ability to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the socio-religious issues through ideological and literary-critical interpretations and to demonstrate the ability to critically read and interpret specific texts, developed through syndicate and individual tasks. Formative assessment was via feedback on syndicate presentations and on a 1000 word individual commentary chosen from one of the weekly texts. Summative assessment consists of an essay and examination. There are voluntary tutorials at which students are encouraged to discuss oral presentations, essay choices and drafts, and compulsory tutorials for essay feedback. Individual and group transferable skills are stressed in the outlines.
The class was divided into syndicate groups. Members were allocated using the departmental reports on academic achievement, background, age and gender, and aimed to establish a mix of team types. Weekly tasks were assigned to groups and included suggestions on how to manage their time.¹⁰⁹ Email lists encouraged all class members to arrange or even conduct meetings electronically. Tasks emphasised the need to read, analyse and interpret primary texts. The use of secondary texts was restricted to specific weeks. This aimed to develop confidence in the production of the students’ own arguments using new methodologies. Secondary texts were used to demonstrate how different methodologies either restrict or add to interpretations. Each week, groups were expected to present a five-minute summary on different aspects of the primary texts (with handouts). General discussion aimed to draw the main issues together. This constituted the first half of the two-hour session. The second half consisted of a mini-lecture based on weekly topic handouts, in-class group work, general discussion and summaries.

Students were asked to agree a verbal contract on syndicates. In Week 4, an additional session provided guidelines on the relationship between transferable and academic skills, gave advice on how to develop and monitor those skills and gave examples of how all these skills relate to both the institution and the wider world of work. The Level 2 class was organised along similar lines. The observations were taken from Week 3 for Level 1 and Week 9 for Level 2.

The Level 1 session consisted of 5 syndicate groups, each of 8 members.¹¹⁰ They presented on the weekly assignment, which consisted of different aspects of the same primary text, without the use of secondary texts. The students showed a high level of engagement. They used a variety of presentation forms. Two presented as a group, with each member expanding on bullet-points from OHP visuals. Two groups elected a single member to present, the other members answering questions in the general discussion which followed. The final group presented two arguments in an adversarial format. Four out of five groups provided summary handouts of the main issues. The overall standard of presentations was imaginative but timing was an issue in those formats in which all members presented. Those in which single members presented were read from a written text. Two groups had ignored the instruction not to refer to secondary texts. Peer assessment forms allowed each group to reflect on their own presentations in a comparison of the others. They were asked to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each, to share their results with the whole group and to compare their own performance and their experience of working as a syndicate in preparatory meetings. Students demonstrated a familiarity with many of the learning/teaching techniques that had been introduced, although some groups had experienced problems with organisation, time management and the synthesis of views, showing the need to further develop these skills.¹¹¹ The discussion left little time for the mini-lecture or for summing-up but the peer assessment process had been placed early enough in the unit to make future adjustments that would ensure that the content of course was covered in full.

Level 2 students were asked to keep learning journals as well as to work in syndicates. The observation took place in Week 9, the time at which the students had the most pressure because of submission of commentaries for formative assessment and planning tutorials for assessed essays.¹¹² The session began with a tutor-led consideration of difficult methodologies and theories set in the weekly task. The general discussion that followed was very lively, with several students showing interest and aptitude in the topic. Two asked questions about the possibility of being able to use these methodologies in dissertations in other courses, showing the ability to relate information and knowledge from one unit to another. A mature student was having difficulty with accepting and understanding the new methodologies and resented having to take these on board, preferring to adhere to traditional redactionhistorical methods. ¹¹³

At this point in the unit, it was clear that all the groups had taken the decision to elect one member of their syndicate group to present for the others. Several meetings had taken place on-line to save time. However, out of four presentations, two had clearly left it to one member to produce most of the work, as the other members were unable to answer questions in the discussion that followed. The presentations demonstrated the students’ desire to express their own views in relation to those gleaned from secondary texts which had been included in the tasks for the week. Differences between readings were raised in presentations and in the general discussion that followed there were further questions to the tutors on the theory behind the methodologies.

The second half of the session began by drawing conclusions from the presentations and the tutor gave a mini-lecture on the major themes of the topic area for the following week. Tasksheets and handouts were provided for the following week and questions arising from these were put to the tutor. They were encouraged to get in touch about problems and queries on any of the work. The timing of this session was much better than in the larger, Level 1 class. In the discussions, representatives from all three levels participated. The Level 1 group felt that the number of weekly presentations sometimes encroached on the mini-lecture, with insufficient time being left for summing-up. They would have preferred not to have to present every week, although they agreed that this demand did pressurise them to prepare for classes and helped in their individual selection of essays and commentary topics and in the preparation of examinations. Working in groups allowed them to share ideas and improved their confidence levels. They were surprised at how many different arguments had been presented, providing a broader and more complex sense of the texts. Several expressed their frustration over restrictions on the use of secondary texts, explaining that they had not been expected to express their own arguments at A level. They found this difficult but challenging. Discussion in small groups beyond the classroom had, however, helped them to develop their critical thinking and their ability to express an argument to other people. Ideas gained in groups had informed their personal research and essays and they shared and learned new skills from each other to a far greater degree than in traditional learning/teaching formats.

However, these demands had made the unit more difficult than the others because they had to work harder on the key concepts behind the course material rather than being able to depend on lecture notes (and secondary literature). Many felt that summative assessment may provide a reward for the effort they had made in acquiring syndicate skills. They were still more at ease with traditional formats of lectures (with a small number of seminars in which individuals presented) with general discussion and acknowledged the appeal of having to do less preparation for these classes, stating that they tended to only prepare for their own presentations. However, they liked the role play and debates organised by another tutor. They stressed the importance of the tutor’s teaching style noting that charismatic lecturers increased their interest in the subject. Teachers who never put down students’ ideas or queries increased confidence levels but group presentations did enable shy students to work within a team environment which provided a safer framework in which to develop confidence.

Levels 2 students made many of the same comments but they were more concerned about time management and difficulties experienced by lack of attendance of some members.¹¹⁴ They would favour summative assessment of group work, but only if all members contributed. Assessment of individual presentations assured personal over group responsibility and as assessment was based on individual achievement, group project assessments were perceived by some as a threat.¹¹⁵ There was a split of opinion over the benefit of syndicate work but they all liked small group work in class. Several stated that syndicates did not suit their own personal learning styles, but there were others who liked this format and who clearly articulated an appreciation of the link between team transferable skills and the world of work.¹¹⁶ Several wanted to select their own team members, were concerned about the selection process and felt that, failing self-selection, preliminary group exercises in class would have familiarised them with their group members and improved syndicate team performance beyond the classroom.

They saw the value of a clearly defined departmental strategy on learning/teaching, in which development of different key skills were explicitly structured into units from level to level. They thought that the development of staff teaching skills would be important in any transition from traditional to more innovative learning/teaching formats. This would necessitate a progressive staff and student development policy. With regard to their own skills’ development, the students knew about the Study Skills Unit. Some had been referred for personal study skills but not for presentation skills and none had used it voluntarily. All the students were keen to see an increased use of IT resources and felt that these could provide an unbiased interactive environment. They had valued their own use of email and messenger in arranging and holding syndicate meetings.

Journals and questionnaires showed many of the same concerns over assessment. Where the experience of group projects had gone well, students favoured summative assessment. Several felt that as they had completed the work, they may as well be assessed on it. Sharing ideas had broadened their outlook and helped to contextualise their own views. Peer discussion beyond the classroom helped to clarify issues. More material was covered in syndicate preparation but some resented the ‘hassle’ and extra demand on time.

Confidence was increased even though the synthesis of ideas was a problem due to a lack of team skills. None liked the idea that strong group members either dominated or carried the weakest or uncommitted. The independent learners (about half) wanted their learning to reflect personal efforts. But several students enjoyed learning how to share, evaluate and synthesise different arguments and felt that it enhanced interpersonal and personal skills.

Syndicate projects challenged motivation, forcing engagement in the subject and ensuring the completion of work in a systematic way. Essays and examinations allowed students to put off working, or to work strategically. Group work forced them to look at the whole course rationale and to work to regular deadlines, which helped in essay and examination preparation. More consistent preparation and engagement during the unit had meant that they needed to revise less for examinations, and summarising critical reading in group tasks had developed the skills they needed for the first half of the examination. In discussion with the tutor, the importance of improving critical thinking was a paramount reason behind the implementation of syndicate work due to the perception that there had been a decrease in close reading skills and independently thought-through arguments at A level. The format had been experimental and on reflection, it was felt that a greater variety of group learning/teaching techniques should be introduced in future units, with syndicate work forming one part of that variety. For example, fishbowl groups, buzz word and brainstorming sessions would increase confidence in the classroom, prior to the setting of syndicate projects. The tutor had previously used traditional lecture formats and had found it difficult not to intervene, through fear of not covering all the course material. The changeover to student-led learning/teaching had been difficult and transfer and shaping teaching habits had been difficult to break. This had caused problems over keeping to the lesson plan. However, there was no doubt that engaged discussion had been enhanced and essay and commentary standards had generally improved.

The tutor was keen to continue the development of group teaching skills within a changed teaching style and saw the value of a departmental policy on learning/teaching in which staff development focused on the development of transferable key skills to a plan. Teachers in the department meet regularly to share ideas. Peer reviews and student feedback are used to change teaching methods in conjunction with the staff-student liaison committee. Several changes in policy had been introduced in recent years, although these tended to be piecemeal and did not unpack the rationale behind learning/teaching methods and theory. They concentrated on formats for the assessment of individuals.¹¹⁷

Case Study 2
This Level 3 class¹¹⁸ consisted of 10 students, nine of whom were in attendance. The class was about equally mixed between males and females. Most came from independent school backgrounds. There were no mature students. The tutor is a high performer in research production and takes a close interest in education theory, in particular, the incorporation of IT learning/teaching methods and group learning. This tutor has been commended for his learning/teaching practice. The observation took place in Week 4 of the unit, just before students were scheduled to begin the first of their assessed essays.
The core learning objectives are to gain an understanding of three modern religious movements within the context of a country’s overall recent religious history.¹¹⁹ In individual presentations of each research syndicate’s summary to the class, and in assessed essays, this requires the ability to recognise and apply different methodologies and to present arguments from secondary reading. Skills development, therefore, includes presenting, analysing and evaluating complex ideas. Summative assessment is by a portfolio of two essays selected from prescribed questions. Formative assessment is via weekly topic assignments in which brief outlines are submitted to the tutor. In the classroom, the first half of the session concentrated on group work and discussion. The second half consisted of a lecture. There was evidence of a great variety of group learning/teaching techniques within this first half and the tutor’s overall learning/teaching approach is constituted by an innovative mix of informational and learning formats designed around the numbers and intellectual level of the students. The course outline (accessible in hard copy and on-line) provides a clear structural guide to course form and content. Syndicate group members are listed in the outline, as are weekly tasks with clear instructions. A4 transcripts of the presentation outlines are posted weekly (with the tutor’s comments) on ‘Blackboard’, an IT learning/teaching website. This programme consists of announcements, course and staff information, students’ transcripts, an email communication network and a discussion board to which the tutor adds comments twice weekly, providing an exciting extension to contact hours and a shared forum for the group. It also provides web links to websites and articles that are available on-line. The group task preparation in the session I observed involved the scrutiny, analysis and evaluation of several essays from previous years.¹²⁰ Each student had been asked, prior to the class, to assess an essay and to complete an Essay Report Form giving a mark and comments. The session itself consisted of a discussion in syndicates, in which the differences between the essays were evaluated. In a plenary discussion the tutor guided the students through the various aspects of essay writing – research, argument, structure, use of sources, citations, annotations and bibliography. The integration of individual and group skills was highly innovative. The students were required to use their individual and team skills in the development of a clear understanding of essay skills, and in an appreciation of the two-way process of assessment (allocation of marks, feedback and student response). The tutor made full use of the time in and beyond the classroom.

The topic was skills-oriented and yet the exercise of reading other students’ work introduced them to approaches to course content. The syndicate discussions were heated and all students were fully engaged. They had clearly taken time and pleasure in the assessment task. The groups were asked to justify marks for each essay in a plenary session. At the end of this discussion the tutor gave out the marks that he had allocated and discussed the disparities between his marks and rationale and that of the students. This discussion continued amongst the students during the ten-minute break.¹²¹

At the beginning of the second half, the tutor reminded the group how to access transcripts of previous presentations and how to highlight his critical comments. He then gave a lecture which incorporated a variety of learning/teaching techniques (use of white board, handouts of both primary and secondary texts). The handouts were used by syndicate groups to discuss the pros and cons of the topic prior to a tutor-led discussion. The discussion which followed the class consisted only of male students.¹²²They emphasised that attitudes to group learning/teaching varied from teacher to teacher. It would seem that the dominant format in the department is still the traditional lecture, with handouts, plus a general question and answer discussion. One teacher did, however, encourage role playing sessions. Another ran seminar groups that alternated between tutor- and student-led sessions.

As in the previous case study, these students were greatly influenced by charismatic lecturing and whilst they thought that group learning provided a means to bond with each other in the first year, they would prefer not to work in groups in Year 3. By this level, they wanted to be assessed for their individual research and essay skills, in which their critical thinking could be clearly seen as their own. They enjoyed group learning but did not feel that it was valued highly by the department and it was not assessed summatively. Further, they did not like the idea of summative assessment, as it would not demonstrate their individual skills and knowledge of the subject. They were not particularly interested in the importance of group skills to their future careers, even when it was pointed out that graduate recruitment interviews concentrate on these. They felt they could ‘get up to speed’ when the time came. Most did not think they would follow careers in RS, but felt that RS gave them a good standard degree with important skills in critical thinking and analysis.

In discussion with the tutor, it was explained how the department members meet up to share both learning/teaching ideas and the Staff Support Unit evaluations from student feedback forms which provide students views on form and content. Clearly some members of the faculty favour group learning/teaching techniques, such as debates, role play and syndicate work, but overall, traditional models have tended to dominate and no formal policy or guidelines on group work existed. A new policy was being considered in which there would be a conscious move away from lecture-only formats to seminar blocks, a format favoured by the two tutors I observed. This, and the prescribed formats for assessment, does demonstrate the move towards a clear strategy on learning/teaching.

When designing courses that prioritise group learning/teaching, the teacher took class numbers into account. It was pointed out that most of the students come from independent schools, although attempts are being made to widen access. The students are achievers with high levels of drive. They tend to be strongly individualistic and strategic learners who are assessment driven. This was reflected in the comments made by the students. Their resistance to group learning reflected their desire to compete and achieve in an individual capacity. The sense of resistance played an important part in the course design and the session I observed had been planned to encourage sharing and developing skills which cross over from individual to group skills. Any reluctance to work corporately was rewarded by a stronger desire to understand the assessment process in which they could compare their own essay writing skills with those of other students. The use of Blackboard on which presentation transcripts were posted, provided another means to compare their own work with that of the others and in this the tutor recognised that most students are assessment-driven.¹²³

The tutor commented that, as a small humanities discipline in which ‘research’ generally means single-authored books or articles, RS does not encourage academics to collaborate on research projects. This was felt to explain why few teachers value group learning/teaching. Most will not join in shared projects in their own professional capacity as researchers, as individual achievement is rated more highly and provides the best means for promotion. Individual achievers earn financial points in RAE and this is what is most prized by the discipline. It was considered not surprising, therefore, that the emphasis on individual achievement is also reflected in learning/teaching, however much the individual tutor may attribute importance to group or team skills.

Case study 3
This Level 2 class consisted of seventeen students of whom two were male. There was one mature student. The department has a high level of students from independent schools. The teacher is Ivy League-educated, at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and holds teaching awards with distinctions. The observation took place in the final session of the unit, providing an opportunity to discuss the learning/teaching experience of a completed module.
The core learning objectives of this unit are for students to gain understanding of a specific biblical genre through familiarity with the core primary texts¹²⁴ and the development of a ‘working knowledge’ of mainly socio-historical exegesis, leading to the production of hermeneutical readings which aim to demonstrate relevance to the contemporary world. Key skills include critical reading and comparison of primary texts, research investigation of the genre and its function, exegesis (analysis and synthesis) and hermeneutics (evaluation and interpretation), achieved by working as individuals and in groups. Assessment is as in Case 2.

The overall format of the unit is to convene as a whole group at the beginning of sessions before breaking into four discussion groups, the mix of which may vary from week to week. Each group member is expected to have completed a pre-arranged task prior to most classes. This consists of reading primary and secondary texts.¹²⁵ The two-hour session was divided into two halves. The first half consisted of team discussion and concentrated on the critical analysis of core primary texts. Knowledge of secondary texts informed these readings. Generally speaking, two texts were allocated, two groups discussing one and two discussing the other. A student was selected to present an informal summary of each group discussion in a final a plenary session in which differences were debated and assessed. The second hour consisted of a lecture with opportunities for students to question the tutor and to encourage students to make connections to previous topics, methodologies and ideas, before drawing conclusions as a class.

Only two students failed to attend this final session. The group sessions worked well and the students were clearly on familiar terms with each other as they had worked together on a weekly basis over the entire module. I sat in on all four teams and they showed an enthusiastic engagement with the topic, making connections with previous topic areas, with some bringing information from reading carried out in individual preparation beyond the class. Most had brought prepared outlines which they used to bring up issues and areas for discussion.

There was some disparity in the levels of contribution and clearly they had a working agreement for some to contribute and prepare more work. One or two students dominated their groups, but overall listening skills were good and they managed to focus on the synthesis of shared ideas and to prioritise points for the summary presentations. There was a noticeable ease in selecting the presenter and clearly some groups had agreed on how to equably share out weekly presentation summaries. In this way, they would all be guaranteed the opportunity to develop their presentation skills and no one person would dominate this key area. In the discussion that followed the class,¹²⁶ the students demonstrated confidence and ease with both the format and the tutor. They liked to work in syndicates. They also liked the fact that syndicate work preceded the lecture. It kept concentration levels high. Some commented that the intimate nature of the class reminded them of school and felt that it encouraged the development of interpersonal relationships, not afforded by lecture formats (with seminars in which individuals present). One student commented that the preparation of weekly tasks, which are then discussed in their syndicate, facilitated the selection of essay topics and enabled individuals to try out their argument within an informal, safe and public forum. None of the students rejected the suggestion of formal assessments for group projects, although they would like this to be based on a written outline and not the informal presentation. One student thought that these skills would be enhanced by feedback on critical thinking, discussion and presentation in personal tutorials. All students agreed that there was no clear departmental policy on learning/teaching and that tutors varied in their approach to group learning, with most adhering to traditional formats of lectures plus additional seminars with open discussion or individual presentations.

Additional feedback was provided from learning journals, in which students reflected that group work clarified key course concepts and that the views of others helped in developing one’s own ideas and arguments. When, initially, concepts had been hard to grasp, group discussion assisted in the transference of one concept across to another, particularly in the provision of examples. Task-oriented discussion assisted in the expansion of work done in private preparation. Overall, it was felt that working in syndicate groups was fun and that the informal structure enhanced confidence levels. The variety of ideas and comments encouraged individuals to value their own views as well as those of others. One student was a self-confessed individual learner but felt that syndicate work had broadened her appreciation of team efforts, and dispelled most of her fears about disparities in ability, contribution and confidence levels. The informal, relaxed atmosphere encouraged practice in public presentation and debating skills. There was also an appreciation of the variability of format, where from time to time the tutor introduced different group skills (such as brainstorming or the discussion of archaeological artefacts brought into the class).

The tutor shows a great interest in and knowledge of group learning/teaching theory and values the utility of a student-centred approach which encourages full engagement with the subject, the development of interpersonal relationships and communication skills and the acceptance of responsibility to one’s self, the group and the tutor. A poor culture of pre-class preparation in our universities led to the decision to place structured syndicate work in class sessions rather than at the preparatory stage. The resistance to syndicate preparation compares badly with the learning/teaching culture in the US, where students will happily collaborate in groups beyond the classroom. In Level 3 units, this tutor agrees learning contracts verbally with the students and challenges students with unstructured learning/teaching seminars, in which they are required engage fully as proactive participants. In a recent Level 3 course, half the students achieved a first class mark. This was attributed to a contracted acceptance of responsibility for learning by the class, as individuals and groups.¹²⁷ In this unit, as in the first half of the observed session, the tutor acted as a facilitator and guide. Attendance at tutorials, which is voluntary, increased when student-centred group learning methods were introduced.

Although the department meets up to share good ideas in learning/teaching practice, there is no recognisable learning/teaching strategy and teachers are free to teach according to their preferred styles. In unit design, the only departmental prescriptions are on assessment formats¹²⁸. Tutorials are optional and essay drafts are discussed only on presentation of one-side of A4 draft.¹²⁹ No negotiations over titles are allowed. This was seen by the tutor to limit the scope of the teacher. The fact that departmental policy does not include the systematic incorporation of transferable key skills was seen as a failing as the lack of strategy on this area of learning/teaching can mean that methods are ambiguously applied or lack continuity. The tutor fully endorsed the approach of PRS-LTSN and agreed that the undervaluing of teaching skills is directly attributable to RAE links to finance, the demands of TQA and DOE policies.¹³⁰ Because of this, learning/teaching strategies, where they exist, were felt to be reactive, not innovative.

It was thought that this reflects a difference between the UK and the US academic cultures. In the latter, teaching skills are developed at PhD level and are valued as highly in departmental structures as research production. Tutors in the UK are not rewarded or promoted when they demonstrate high level teaching skills and are not encouraged to develop them. Further, in comparison to the US, RS is more vulnerable as a discipline here, as in the US it is integrated into undergraduate foundation courses in the humanities. But this attitude can also be attributed to the fact that departments are not keen on building partnerships with outside agencies unless they relate to specialist research projects. Recruitment is therefore dominated by specialist research production and not by teaching.

Case study 4
The institution and the department in this study have a policy on learning/teaching which includes a strategy on the inclusion of transferable key skills in group learning which are monitored and assessed summatively. This is not, however, clearly spelled out in the Subject Handbook or on the website. Syndicate projects form part of the assessment strategy in which peer reviews form part of the process. This study consisted of an observation of a Level 2/3 unit, with additional material drawn from another Level 2/3 unit in which assessed syndicate projects were obligatory. There were 15 students in the first unit.¹³¹ The students come from a varied background with a mix of abilities. There are relatively high numbers of mature students. Several in the observed class had participated in the assessed syndicate project. The tutor is a professor in Christian ethics. The course outlines clearly differentiate between content aims and learning outcomes. The latter delineates the link between an ethics of learning and the content of the course.¹³² The observed course involved the weekly use of a textbook, with additional bibliography. Group worksheets on a video screening constituted the means for formative assessment. The observed unit was assessed by essay.
Formal contracts were drawn up for any assessed syndicate work and in these projects, topics are negotiated with the tutor. The project format is prescribed.¹³³ Summative assessment of the second unit consisted of a syndicate presentation (20%), an essay (30%) and an examination (50%).

The overall format of the observed unit is a 3-hour session broken into two halves, with a 20-minute break. Three groups work on a task which is given at the beginning of the session. They are expected to have individually read the texts in advance. Twenty minutes was allowed for discussion in which the main issues were unpacked. In the 5-minute presentation by a single nominated member of each group, clear relevance on contemporary issues had to be demonstrated. A general discussion questioned and compared the topics and drew conclusions. Members of each group could offer additional perspectives. I sat in on all the groups and the level of engagement was high. Many showed the need to express personal meaning and this concern informed the detail of the final presentations.¹³⁴ The level of discussion was good, with students referring to previous topics and courses. They all seemed to have prepared for the class and many showed the relevance of the course to contemporary political issues. The presentations were well constructed and the timing was excellent, demonstrating a confident familiarity with public presenting, due in part to the sense of a safe and encouraging environment. Students showed concern for the ideas of their peers and generally demonstrated their understanding of the course learning outcomes on an ethical approach to team learning/teaching. This could have affected their preparedness to question critically, but, in fact, different views were argued vociferously, although the tutor did tend to draw conclusions on behalf of the group.

The second half of the class consisted of a lecture followed by a general discussion and summary. Students felt confident to ask questions during the lecture and the tutor encouraged interventions and concentration levels remained high throughout the session. The environment was conducive to this format and took place in a recently purpose-designed room, with good lighting, OHP and computer facilities. Although the tutor did not make use of these in the observed session, both tutor and students regularly use these.¹³⁵

In the discussion with students, they explained how group skills were developed over the 3 levels. At level 1, in-class group work is developed, with regular use of fishbowl, snowball and buzz groups, in which tasks are given prior to general discussion. There is, however, variation in learning/teaching formats. This particular tutor was highly rated for the ability to encourage student-centred learning. It was generally felt that individual presentations did not facilitate learning as often it was difficult to grasp the information being given. The shift to student-centred learning in syndicates was highly valued at levels 2 and 3, although some self-confessed individual learners resented the effort involved in learning how to organise meetings and allocate roles. They did acknowledge that these formed an important aspect of what they described as ‘life skills’. Their use of vocabulary demonstrated an understanding of the importance of interpersonal skills and although they valued charismatic lecturing, this was less marked than in the other two institutions. It was pointed out that as a discipline, theology (and, more generally, RS) revolved around the concept of community and yet it was felt that in order to obtain a degree, individual skills were still more highly rated than team skills. This sometimes created tensions in syndicate projects, and one student resented summative assessment as her project mark had been lower than her essay and examination marks.

Overall, this group of students emphasised skills over content, but nonetheless, they clearly repeated the benefits expressed by the students from the other institutions.¹³⁶ There was less emphasis on the negative aspects of team work. They liked working in syndicates beyond the classroom, although for some (in particular the mature students who live off-campus) arranging meetings was clearly a problem. In discussion with the tutor, the commitment to a shift to student-centred learning was clear, as was the link between the ethics of community in the content of RS and group learning/teaching. The instigation of an institutional and departmental policy on group learning/teaching was seen as a positive benefit which allowed the progressive development of transferable key skills which could be carefully monitored and assessed. Interpersonal skills were seen as an important part of students’ development with relevance to the world of work and to academic practice. The provision of a safe, nurturing environment formed part of this process, as it helped engender confidence and the ability to share. Individual learning was not impeded by this emphasis, rather it has been shown to improve individual skills. Small group discussion and presentations allowed students the confidence needed to develop individual arguments in personal study, by comparing their own ideas with those of the others. The standard of debate had increased because of the environment developed in these classes. A 3-hour session was seen to enhance the students’ knowledge of each other and allowed sufficient time to experiment. The provision of a lecture at the end of each session satisfied those students who still depended on note-taking and handouts.

3.4. The student questionnaire¹³⁷
The rationale behind the questionnaire was to supplement observations and discussions with student perceptions on learning, teaching, key skills in group learning, departmental culture, key skills brought forward from school and support mechanisms. It looked for evidence of patterns and coherence in perceptions of learning/teaching.¹³⁸ The questions provide evidence of a considerable variation in attitudes. I have, therefore, selected to make general observations on this outcome.¹³⁹
Perceptions of the department on learning/teaching: Over the 3 levels, more students believed that their departments emphasised individual over group learning, reflecting a clear understanding of the assessment and learning/teaching formats.¹⁴⁰ The majority had not been asked to agree learning contracts.¹⁴¹ The vast majority perceived learning/teaching to be dominated by lectures, although many failed to recognise that they had participated in seminar learning/teaching, with mini-lectures. Formats were, in the main, tutor-led.¹⁴² A relatively limited experience of group methods had been experienced in HE, with fishbowl and brainstorming sessions being the most commonly used.¹⁴³ Although all the students had experience of syndicate projects, they were not all clear about this.¹⁴⁴ This may reflect a lack of terminology or a lack of reflection on learning/teaching methods.
Perceptions of learning:In this section, students demonstrated that their learning styles differ considerably and that the mix of learning types may vary from year to year. For example, the Level 1 group was dominated by students who considered that a combination of course content, individual and group learning was important, whereas in Levels 2/3, a greater proportion stressed the importance of course content and individual learning.¹⁴⁵ This may reflect the fact that students know that these levels count towards individual degree marks and that few courses include summative assessment of syndicate work.¹⁴⁶
In students working at Levels 1 and 3, there is evidence of different learning types, with a split between surface and deep learners, deep slightly outnumbering surface learners. This was reversed among the students working at Level 2 .¹⁴⁷ Differences are again reflected in the questions on how students prefer to learn.¹⁴⁸ In Level 1, 60% of students show their dependency on secondary literature and lecture notes for the assimilation of abstract concepts. This dependency decreased in Level 2, but not in Level 3. Overall, most students feel that group discussion (syndicate or general) helps them to develop the means to think critically and present arguments, although general discussion was favoured over syndicate work (except in Level 1). It was noticeable that a considerable percentage viewed group discussion as the best forum for developing their critical thinking; this may indicate an increasing sophistication in their understanding of key skills and learning/teaching methods. When it comes to personal motivation,¹⁴⁹ a number of students showed a surface approach to learning, in that they were motivated by a fear of not completing the course.¹⁵⁰ A considerable proportion of students wanted to explore their own ideas and to understand those of others but the pattern varied. This was also the case in other motivational areas and no clear pattern emerged, demonstrating a variation in learning types.

In all cases, students are influenced most by their tutor’s teaching style.¹⁵¹ Students over all 3 levels predominantly preferred lecture formats that are tutor-led and that do not include seminars.¹⁵² Very few prefer seminar-only formats. Level 1 students seek formative assessment predominantly for essays.¹⁵³ There is a broader spread of opinion at other levels, although Level 3 students would like formative assessment of informal individual and group presentations.
Perceptions of teaching: Most students stressed the importance of the role of the tutor as facilitator, in both the provision of course content and skills’ development.¹⁵⁴ Again, in prioritising areas which reflect learning styles, the results were mixed, showing a variety of learning types.¹⁵⁵ As they progress through the levels, fewer students want pre-class tasks but a large number want the opportunity to discuss problem resolution.¹⁵⁶ In the organisation of courses, charismatic lecturing, clear outlines and handouts outweighed the development of intellectual and transferable skills or the ability to make fair assessments.¹⁵⁷

In the development of courses, the relationship between the students’ intellectual ability and course level, and the newness and size of the subject, far outweighed considerations about background or gender.¹⁵⁸ None thought that gender was an issue and yet there are some signs of difference between the sexes and ages.¹⁵⁹ Perceptions of group learning skills: Once again, results showed a variety of learning types and results did not show a predominant pattern of perceptions.¹⁶⁰ Their understanding of how and where they developed different skills was excellent.¹⁶¹ As the levels progress, there is an increasing acceptance that comprehension, application, analysis and evaluation are effectively learned in group discussion of one form or another,¹⁶² although many still see lectures as the best way in which to learn and synthesise all the skills needed, many also see essays as the locus for drawing together all these skills, particularly in Level 3.163 This may demonstrate development in self-reflection over the 3 levels. Group learning was viewed positively in the development of organisational and communication skills, increasing levels of confidence.¹⁶⁴ As the levels progressed, it was increasingly seen as a problem-solving forum. The proportions of students who prefer to work in groups again reflected a change over the 3 levels, with more Level 1 students preferring to work alone. About a third of students in Levels 2/3 preferred to work in groups.¹⁶⁵ However, none of the students resented having to work in groups, an important consideration in the development of learning/teaching strategies and it would be useful to evaluate how changes in habitual formats might affect those views over time.

Key skills transferred from school: Students surveyed at levels 1 and 3 showed high levels of confidence in their own abilities on coming into HE.¹⁶⁶ They all had experience of a variety of group skills prior to entry, with a number having worked on assessed syndicate projects.¹⁶⁷ Students were clear that key skills were described in outlines and handbooks, but they were less clear about the existence of Study Skills units and few make use of them.¹⁶⁸ As to areas on which they might seek help, essay writing and personal study skills outweighed the desire to improve personal or group presentation skills or the skills needed to work in groups, although Level 3 were less concerned about personal study skills, demonstrating perhaps an increase in confidence.

4. Outcomes
The central aim of this project was to gain insight on attitudes towards and practice of group learning/teaching in relation these to the key concerns of critical thinking, student-led discussion in student-centred learning and their relationship to transferable key skills and employability. Following an exploration of key education theories on learning/teaching types and teaching in small groups¹⁶⁹ (in the context of the broader picture of learning/teaching¹⁷⁰), the research attempted to provide a preliminary picture of group learning/teaching RS in the overall strategies on learning/teaching in RS.
Learning/teaching which is grounded in traditional transfer and shaping formats are seen to still dominate RS learning/teaching. These focus on tutor-led teaching and individual learning skills. Group learning is still relatively under-exploited in most departments and syndicate projects are rare. There is however, a clear indication that a substantial percentage of staff and students recognise the value of group learning in the development of these key considerations.¹⁷¹ The case studies show that teachers with a high commitment level to group work can add to learning/teaching satisfaction and enjoyment, despite the extra effort needed to plan and run these formats. Tutors who use these methods suggest that results are beneficial to the development of critical thinking and student-led learning. One tutor demonstrated clearly that passing the responsibility over to the students, at the right level, can result in extremely high results.¹⁷² Clearly, high level facilitating skills are required of teachers and there are signs that the development of clear institutional and departmental policies which emphasise the need for team skills (within an ethical base) help to ensure the transition to student-led learning/teaching.¹⁷³ The study evidences a variety of learning/teaching styles and staff development should be seen as just as important as student development. Students are able to articulate their recognition of staff skills’ shortfalls and are reluctant to change their own practice if their tutors do not change theirs.¹⁷⁴ Motivation to change may, thus, be impeded by habit and the lack of reward, for both teachers and students, as clearly both are reward/assessment driven.¹⁷⁵

Policies on learning/teaching that acknowledge these problems would provide a way to ensure the progressive transition and development of these key skills areas. It is possible that the ability to demonstrate the value of group learning skills to employers could enhance the ability of RS to develop better partnerships both in and beyond the HE institution. The provision of courses, in which these skills are clearly structured, would increase the students’ awareness of the importance of team projects to their ability to gain high level employment at the end of their degrees.

4.1 Interpretations
The culture of learning/teaching in RS: Whilst this survey can only begin to raise awareness of the existence of a possibly predominant style and culture in RS learning/teaching, there is some evidence that in almost all the institutions represented, concerns over specialist research dominates attitudes to how we balance the organisation of learning/teaching with research in our departments. The provision of a stimulating learning/teaching environment is seen to be important but, in the main, traditional teaching styles and teaching formats still dominate, despite the evidence from education theory that transfer and shaping models do not encourage student-centred learning or the development of skills needed for critical thinking. The methods used for group learning are relatively under-exploited and their importance in the development of transferable skills needed by employers does not seem to have been sufficiently assimilated. Whilst most teachers see themselves as facilitators of student-led learning in which students are enabled to develop critical skills through an understanding of themselves and the world, most follow transfer and shaping teaching models.
Evidence from the student questionnaire demonstrates that student learning types vary from class to class, and from level to level. Their learning/teaching needs vary accordingly. But traditional formats will tend to favour individual and surface learners over deep learners and team players. Students are aware of the dominant learning/teaching priorities of their departments and wish to demonstrate the skills needed to reflect those priorities. In this, they reinforce existing practice, especially as it makes less demands on them.

The evidence for clear corporate strategies, in which the development of all-round learning skills are systematically planned, is scant. I would suggest that whilst there is a growing desire and awareness of the need to develop a variety of learning/teaching methods, in particular in group learning/teaching, this would seem to be driven by the efforts of individual teachers, and not by departmental strategies. This raises questions about the way in which the development of transferable key skills is incorporated into teaching methods. Learning/teaching styles: The survey provides tentative evidence for the existence of a wide variety of teaching and learning styles at the individual level. These differences, however, show that the dominant teaching styles are that of the transfer and shaping models, in which the traditional lecture is supplemented by general discussion and individual presentations in additional seminars. Limited in-class group techniques are employed and syndicate projects are still relatively rare. And even though it is acknowledged in RS that discussion in groups improves critical thinking, theory suggests that it is through innovative student-led group work that confidence and deep learning is best encouraged.

The diversity of learning types demonstrates that a variety of learning/teaching methods is needed to enable a larger number of students to fully develop their potential. And whilst students show reluctance or resistance to group learning, due to the continuous efforts required to gain these skills, they openly acknowledge its benefits in the development of their critical thinking, in the systematic organisation and management of study and in the production of their own individual study (e.g., the selection and production of essays and revision work). Learning/teaching skills’ development: Although most departments have Staff Development and Study Skills Units, voluntary subscription does not sufficiently raise awareness of the need to use them. Evidence for the systematic development of skills in learning/teaching is patchy and few of the departments surveyed could demonstrate a clear strategy. There is a need, therefore, to evaluate how best to ensure the planning in of transferable skills into course structures, taking account of learning/teaching types and levels. Development should be progressive, with all skills taught at each level. This raises a number of issues about how the broad range of skills is guaranteed at each stage of a student’s development. When teachers are left to make their own decisions about learning/teaching formats, and because of the selection of optional modules, students may miss out on the development of particular skills because of an imbalance in planning which methods are used from unit to unit, and from level to level.
Group learning/teaching methods: Discussion is seen by all teachers as a priority in the development of critical thinking and yet most use traditional tutor-led formats which do not encourage deep learning strategies that develop independent thinking or the key skills needed to enhance it. Group learning in syndicates and in-class groups is seen to greatly enhance student confidence in assimilating, analysing and assessing difficult concepts and yet there is little evidence that these methods are being introduced in the kind of coherent and consistent way which will systematically develop these skills.

Summative assessment of group work would seem to be rare. Students know this to be the case, and perceive group learning/teaching as being rated less highly than individual effort. Group learning involves a greater commitment to planning, running and participating in order to make it work successfully. The undervaluing of teaching in funding assessment, therefore, does not encourage teachers to make the kind of commitment necessary to develop the skills needed to introduce these methods, especially when most students are content to continue along traditional learning/teaching lines.

Employers’ views provided in the Dearing Report indicate that team skills and student-centred learning (exemplified in group learning) are becoming more and more important to non-vocational employability. They stress the need to communicate, co-ordinate and evaluate material within a corporate environment. Graduate and postgraduate recruitment policies are organised around the ability to work in teams, to make presentations within a corporate environment.¹⁷⁶ Institutions and departments are increasingly required to build partnerships with agencies and the world of work beyond the institution and to show the relevance of skills developed in individual disciplines. The emphasis of RS on critical thinking fulfils the need of employers, but at present, this is encouraged at the individual, not the group or corporate level (also in its research culture).

4.2. Questions arising
Provisional evidence indicates that teachers of RS, in the main, adhere to traditional learning/teaching styles and formats. Students show a variety of learning types. Both recognise that group discussion helps to develop critical thinking but subscribe to learning/teaching formats which, according to education theory, are not best suited to its optimum development.
These conclusions raise some key questions
The traditional learning/teaching pattern continues despite the fact that most students have received a good grounding in a variety of group learning methods in schools, few of which are used in HE.

Does this mean that they give up these skills to concentrate on individual skills as they perceive these to be more highly valued in RSHE?
The individual case studies demonstrate a high level of commitment to the value of group learning by the tutors. They are responding to the trends in education theory and their own convictions that group learning enhances the development of critical thinking, student-centred learning and the kinds of transferable skills needed in the work of work.

How far should developments in teaching methods be determined by the convictions and enthusiasm of individual tutors, and how far by departmental and disciplinary strategy?
Students recognise that group learning helps them in the development of interpersonal skills and yet many resent the effort involved in developing those skills. Their dependency on charismatic lecturing and their fear of being let down by group members, shows their understanding that summative assessment is dominated by individual tasks.

Would assessment of syndicate projects encourage both staff and students to take group learning/teaching more seriously?
One tutor in the case studies acknowledged that his own teaching style affected the smooth introduction of group learning/teaching.

As most RS teachers use transfer and shaping teaching styles, whilst believing themselves to be guides and catalysts, would the introduction of questionnaires on teaching styles help in raising awareness levels needed for change and self-development?
All the tutors in the case studies were convinced that group learning/teaching improved the students’ confidence levels, their communication skills, and their ability to evaluate and synthesise concepts.

Are these key skills being sufficiently well connected to learning outcomes in course learning/teaching planning, outlines and skills training?
The evidence for different learning styles suggests that a variety of learning/teaching methods needs to be used in order to get the best out of students.

Would the introduction of questionnaires on student learning styles help in the design of courses, where styles are linked to tasks and outcomes?
The emphasis of RAE driven policies and the undervaluing of high level teaching skills would seem to create tensions in departmental strategies.

Should RS departments be lobbying for funding for excellence in teaching, in particular for those that demonstrate their recognition of the importance of group learning to transferable skills required in the recruitment of graduates from nonvocational degrees?

4.3. The benefits of change in learning/teaching
The questions in the preceding section aim to open these issues to debate. A preliminary evaluation of learning/teaching practice in RS in HE suggests that we would benefit from further consideration of how to move away from teaching methods which emphasise individual skills to those that demonstrate a balance between individual and group skills. Any shift in this direction would positively demonstrate the discipline’s awareness of a widening perspective on skills, and show how the form and content of the discipline can relate to the wider contemporary world.¹⁷⁷
4.4. Evaluating learning/teaching
In order to understand how students are being taught, a process of selfreflection can assist in the generation of creative solutions on the key issues of the development of critical thinking in a student-centred group learning/ teaching environment that ensures the prioritisation of transferable key skills. This would include clarification of the following areas:
- transferable key skills that aid in the development of critical thinking;
- the teaching formats most used in the department;
- the teaching styles of the staff (ascertained through peer assessment, education theory and a variety of questionnaires;
- the learning types of the students.¹⁷⁸
Any evaluation of the teaching and learning styles of a department necessitates the full cooperation of staff and students. With regard to the evaluation of teaching, Ramsden suggests that an
… intellectually satisfying approach [is] …to focus on good teaching rather than good teachers…cooperation between members of staff and peer feedback within a team assists learning and motivation…Educational development …involves efforts to change the policies of institutions and departments towards the promotion of good teaching, …[through] the management of academic staff as teachers, in a fuller recognition of the practical problems of innovation…and in systematic programmes of teacher education which take full account of our knowledge of good teaching.¹⁷⁹
Once the dominant style and culture of the department with regard to learning/teaching is acknowledged and understood, ways can be found in which to systematically introduce the types of group learning/teaching formats which encourage student-centred activities which are shown to develop critical thinking and transferable key skills. This would require ‘structural and procedural adjustments in order to move from theory to practice.’¹⁸⁰
4.5. Planning strategies for success
Adjustments to learning/teaching could be achieved by developing a planned strategy to a realistic timetable. It would consist of, inter alia, the following elements:
A progressive strategy of change in learning/teaching formats:
This would begin with a staff development strategy, based on an evaluation of staff and student skills’ development and followed by a year on year introduction of student-centred group work to ensure a smooth transition that would include the monitoring and re-adjustment of changes (logistics and peer review, student feedback and evaluation of student development).

Drane suggests that a variety of formats can be used in longer seminar sessions that include

… role play, small-group work, watching videos and talking about them, story-telling, …interactive forms, making collages, plenaries, learning practical skills – and even elements that might look like traditional lectures, but which will typically be utilized as a point for extempore summing-up of what has already been discovered by other means.¹⁸¹
These formats do not exclude formal or semi-formal presentations, either by groups or individuals representing groups. Discursive formats can enhance learning at higher levels, especially where learning contracts are negotiated to agreed outcomes.¹⁸² The four Case Studies demonstrate how these can be used within the more loosely structured formats suggested by Drane.¹⁸³ Lectures can still form an important element in teaching but transferable key skills need to be developed progressively from Level 1 through to Level 3.
The introduction of key skills only sessions:
Many institutions are introducing team-building and team skills’ sessions in the early part of Level 1. These have the benefit of allowing students to get to know one another in a stimulating environment. They can also be used to introduce the importance of transferable key skills from working in teams to both their studies and the wider world of work. If students are made aware that these skills will form part of their degree programme, they will perhaps be ready to take them more seriously.¹⁸⁴

Planning transferable key skills into course learning/teaching formats:
Drane suggests that in group learning/teaching formats, ‘teachers need to put some additional effort into making sure that …resources are clearly identified and easily available.’¹⁸⁵ This might include the planned use of departmental guides on skills in week-to-week tasks for individuals and groups, incorporation into course outlines and weekly timetables.¹⁸⁶ An improved awareness of the need to provide extensive details on the relevance of key skills to undergraduate achievement as well to the wider world, could be flagged in departmental handbooks and websites. The incorporation of skills training into the structure of the course requires careful consideration of whether to reduce the amount of course subject content.¹⁸⁷

A more effective use of additional support, such as study Skills’ centres:
Most departments have recourse to Study Skills’ support. Few use these mechanisms in a systematic way. Regular referrals, monitored in formative assessment processes (student feedback on essays, presentations and journals), could help to inculcate the culture of selfdevelopment necessary to student-centred learning. This could include self-development of group learning skills.¹⁸⁸

Student-centred group learning/teaching to ensure the development of a community of learners in which both teachers and learners are seen as resources in the team-building process:¹⁸⁹
This requires teachers and students to work in partnership with one another. Being more open about personal and interpersonal skills is one way of inculcating this culture. Graeme Gooday’s recent article on student-centred learning emphasises this. He states:

A productive view of the educational process is to treat students as active participants in the learning process – indeed as the participants in the educational process to whom most attention should be given…We have to abandon the long-entrenched view of students passively orbiting around a resolutely fixed scholarly earth!¹⁹⁰
Learning how students learn is a means to developing the type of partnership in which teachers and students can accept joint and individual responsibility.
Group learning/teaching formats to include the institution of weekly single seminaronly classes:¹⁹¹
For group learning/teaching to work effectively, sufficient time needs to be given over to its practice. Seminar-only courses in which the students are encouraged to cover much of the course in preparing for tasks in the classroom, without being able to depend on lectures, require seminars to be longer than one hour and no less than two. Longer sessions help students to gain confidence in a safe, shared environment, in which there is time to test out ideas and to build in summary sessions that iron out problems.

Whilst it is clear that this type of format works best in Levels 2 & 3, especially as Level 1 numbers tend to be greater, it is important to ensure a progressive development of the skills needed in working in groups. Case Study 1 demonstrated that it is possible to work with larger groups, even though the tutor felt that, on reflection, syndicate projects should only form part of the overall structure of the course. By introducing some syndicate work in the classroom, prior to their working on tasks in private study groups, the students are able to gain a step-bystep knowledge and confidence of these learning/teaching skills. Minilectures and plenary discussions can be used in conjunction with these methods.

Assessment formats, progressively introduced over 3 levels, consisting of learning journals, self and peer assessment, syndicate projects and even fieldwork:¹⁹²
Teachers and students are reward-driven. When assessment of syndicate projects and learning journals is only formative, it is easy for both parties to under-value their importance. At some stage in the undergraduate course, syndicate projects should be summatively assessed. This is the only way in which to develop a learning/teaching culture that acknowledges the importance of transferable skills of this type. Case Study 4 demonstrates that this kind of project can be used to structure in an ethical element in which the team players must take responsibility not just for what they learn, but how they learn. Formative or summative peer and self assessment should also be part of the process. Effective use of the Personal Development Record could further encourage students to participate more fully in their own selfdevelopment of transferable skills needed to work corporately. The ability to articulate their strengths and weaknesses in skills will enable them to reflect on and monitor the whole learning process in relation to their own personal profiles. This progression can be presented to potential employers to demonstrate their ability to understand and change within a personal strategy of self-development.¹⁹³

4.6. Expanding group learning/teaching formats
The case studies show that it is possible to teach small groups in a variety of imaginative and useful ways. The careful planning of skills’ development that encourages the nurturing of critical thinking can vary from in-class group tasks to content-based syndicate tasks, both in and beyond the classroom, the latter, only if students develop a culture of week-on-week preparation.
Case Study 1, despite the acknowledgement of weaknesses in timing, demonstrates that syndicate groups can be introduced to classes of over 30. Case Study 2 demonstrates that individual preparation can be used to enhance small-group work in class. Case Study 3 demonstrates that by recognising that students are assessment-driven, IT programmes can be employed to encourage the sharing of assessment processes and to encourage debate. The introduction of team peer review sessions reward the students with a sense of how to develop individual learning skills within a group forum, in which peer assessment encourages them to share information about skills. It also acts as a motivation to achieve in groups. Case Study 4 demonstrates that a culture of learning/teaching in which group learning is seen as part of the total learning outcomes, helps to inculcate a culture in which personal meaning is respected and shared responsibility taken in the community of learners. Summatively assessed projects help to formalise this process and to raise awareness of interpersonal skills.

All of these processes require the development of teaching styles that recognise the teacher as catalyst or guide to learning, and in which the students and teachers work in partnership towards common goals and outcomes. These include the development of skills which help to build critical abilities in assimilating, analysing and evaluating difficult concepts and a further ability to communicate these in speech and in writing, as individuals and as groups. This approach suggests the need for a radical change in approach, in which the learning/teaching community is seen to be as important as the individual. Any increase in effort is rewarded by improvements in student-centred learning.¹⁹⁴ However, to make sense of the increased levels of skills required by teachers, a greater emphasis on financial and other motivational rewards for good practice is essential. It is to be hoped that this can be achieved, beginning, first of all, with the implementation of cultural change at departmental levels. The effective demonstration of a nuanced balance between individual and group skills within a corporate teaching and research strategy may, in turn, lead to a greater acknowledgement of the importance of rewarding good practice at institutional and government levels, making easier the lobbying for rewards.

4.7. Epilogue
This project has been broad-ranging in its aims, attempting to provide a window on the role and status of group learning/teaching in RS in HE. From interpretation of the staff and student questionnaires, questions have emerged about our awareness of a culture of teaching and learning styles in which both students and teachers may unconsciously impede the introduction of the kinds of innovative methods that are required to develop critical thinking in student-centred learning, and which are demanded by employers of non-vocational degree graduates.
The case studies, however, demonstrate that individual teachers are able to introduce exciting and successful group learning/teaching methods. Ramsden suggests that a good starting point for introducing planned changes in strategy is by looking at good practice. Making good examples known (as through the case studies) is a way of doing this. For example, Case Study 4 demonstrates how the ethics of community can connect into a respect for personal meaning which John Drane reinforced with his suggestions on new styles in learning. Openness to peer review, student feedback and corporate discussion is a good way to smooth the ground for more effective evaluation and future planning. The case-study evidence from the three participating departments in the South West of England demonstrates a shift in attitudes towards group learning. Whether this reflects an overall change in attitudes is far from clear from the questionnaires. But I hope that the interpretation of the questionnaires and the peer review of observed classes will act as a starting point for future discussion on the relevance of group learning/teaching to the key concepts of the importance of critical thinking, student-led discussion and transferable skills needed for future employability by students of RS.

A greater awareness is needed of the benefits and rewards that student-centred group work bring to the learning/teaching process. This requires openness with regard to personal development in both teachers and students that directly links the importance of transferable key skills with desired learning outcomes, in particular those needed to work in teams. The use of questionnaires may be one way of flagging teaching and learning in order to develop coherent, systematic learning/teaching strategies which include an awareness of different kinds of learning/teaching methods to cover all learning/teaching types and all transferable skills. The progressive introduction of changes can be planned, monitored and assessed across all three undergraduate levels over an established number of years, allowing for staff development in the key areas of group learning/teaching methods and assessment processes.

Endnotes
1. Philosophical and Religious Studies Learning and Teaching Support Network.
2. PRS-LTSN major grant website areas, August 2001.
3. The universities of Bristol, Exeter and University College of St Mark and St John, Plymouth.
4. The sample is not large. Returns of the general survey were received from about one third of RS departments. Case studies looked at five group learning sessions across three levels. But, inevitably, such broad ranging questionnaires and case studies cannot account for all the differences between individual teachers and students.
5. PRS-LTSN Major Grant Areas drawn from 2001 questionnaire.
6. ibid, Area 5.
7. ibid.
8. Ramsden Paul, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London, Routledge) 1992, p20.
9. Ramsden, p30.
10. Ramsden, p18.
11. Staff Survey, question 4. C.f., Appendix A.
12. Ramsden, p4.
13. Staff Survey, question 18.
14. Jacques D., Learning in Groups (London, Kogan Page) 1992, p9.
15. On considerations of size, c.f., Jacques, p116 ff, Ramsden, pp156.
16. C.f., Ramsden, p 157.
17. ibid.
18. C.f., Ramsden, p111 and Fox Dennis, “Personal Theories of Teaching” in Studies in Higher Education, Vol 8, No 2, 1983, pp 151-163.
19. Ramsden, p111.
20. C.f., Ramsden, pp113-114.
21. Area 2: Student-led discussion, PRS-LTSN evaluation of concerns in their document on research areas, 2001.
22. Ramsden, p114, C.f, Fox, op cit., pp153ff.
23. C.f, Results pp29ff.
24. Ramsden, p53 and 57.
25. Ramsden, p52.
26. ibid.
27. Jacques D., p13.
28. ibid.
29. Ramsden, p158-9.
30. on surface learning, c.f., Ramsden, p175.
31. C.f., Ramsden, p52, in which he suggests that the surface learner will re-present material from the lecturer (or from secondary reading) without necessarily questioning it.
32. C.f., Ramsden p175 and p52 respectively.
33. C.f., n 42 below.
34. Ramsden, p114.
35. 35 Jacques, p141
36. C.f., Jacques, pp14-20
37. Jacques, on group size, p 9
38. ibid, p 21.
39. C.f., Ramsden, p57 on approaches to learning and examination performance.
40. Ramsden, p28.
41. This key skills list is taken from the Research Council’s Graduate Schools’ Programme (July, 2000) C.f., http://www.gradschools.ac.uk
42. The National Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997 (the ‘Dearing Report’), http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe
43. The National Inquiry into Education, 1997, otherwise know as “The Dearing Report”, Chapter 9.4.
44. The Dearing Report, Summary, no 3.
45. The Dearing Report, Chapter 8.17.
46. MacDonald Ross G. “External Pressures on Teaching” in The PRS-LTSN Journal, Vol.1, No. 2, Winter 2002, pp98-129, p99.
47. For an interesting account of how these changes relate to RS, c.f., Drane J W. Cultural Change and Biblical Faith (Carlisle, Paternoster), chapter 7, pp129-153 and also his article, “Theological Education for the Third Millennium” in the British Journal of Theological Education 6/3 (1994-5), pp3-8.
48. Ramsden, p114.
49. In the section on conclusions, I have suggested that a clear strategy on learning/teaching of key skills can be an aid in the development of student portfolios, in which progressive development is a key factor. C.f., also, George MacDonald Ross, art. cit., p126-128
50. AUDTRS is collated by the PRS-LTSN Subject Centre in Leeds. 35% represents 70% of the total number of institutions. NB I was concerned to gain views from a majority in order to reflect the discipline with reasonable accuracy.
51. Theories used were deep and surface learning, types of teaching, learning types, from Gibbs, Habeshaw, Jacques and Ramsden and were built into questions on learning/teaching in order to gain an overall view of perceptions and practice.
52. PRS-LTSN Major Grant Areas drawn from 2001 questionnaire.
53. C.f., Appendix A.
54. I would like to thank all participants for their time and patience. Many contributed additional information in the form of additional comments and questions, as well as course outlines and articles.
55. Skills development, that is to say, form, not content.
56. C.f., Appendix B, with Parts One and Two (departmental attitudes and culture) followed by Part Three (perceptions and practice of individual teachers).
57. Appendices provide a full breakdown of figures.
58. It is, however, an interesting exercise and a modified and improved questionnaire might prove to be a useful tool in departmental self-reflexive exercises.
59. This latter institution includes the teaching of philosophy. C.f., bibliography for details of departmental websites.
60. I would like to thank the staff and students for their enthusiasm and frankness, without which it would not have been possible to carry out this part of the research.
61. In the case of Exeter, I participated in the teaching process, acting as both teaching assistant and observer.
62. In all cases, staff and students were interviewed. Staff/student questionnaires were able to provide an anonymous perspective on learning/teaching experience in addition to interviews and observations. As with the general questionnaire, all results are presented without naming individuals.
63. One contributor noted that what strategies exist have been produced, above all, in reaction to TQA.
64. c.f., Ramsden P. Learning to Teach in Higher Education (Routledge, London) 1992, p114
65. One of the simplest ways of knowing how seriously a learning method is taken, is to see how it is assessed. A surprising number of students had worked on assessed group projects prior to coming into HE. Over the three levels of students interviewed, about 30% had had group work assessed.
66. This represents just over 70% of departments. Institutions which concentrate on training for ministry were not sampled.
67. 35% of the total number of departments.
68. Of these, 40% focus almost entirely on Christian theology.
69. For questionnaire, see Appendix A, for results, see Appendix B. Vision, aims and outlook are drawn from questions 2 & 6.
70. This question aimed to discover how a department projects itself to prospective members (staff and students) as this will, I hope, give the clearest general articulation of itself. The type of document may include web-sites, course brochures, recruitment notices etc.
71. C.f., Questions 45-6.
72. C.f., Question 4.
73. C.f., Question 28.
74. C.f., Question 36.
75. C.f., Question 35.
76. C.f., Question 5.
77. C.f., Question 35. Other examples were, mini lectures with individual presentations or general discussion, general discussion with individual or group presentations, or general discussion only.
78. In addition to previous questions, c.f., Q27.
79. Presumably this reflects policies which leave such decisions entirely up to individual teachers.
80. C.f, Question 34.
81. C.f., Question 29 NB Learning contracts are an important constituent of learning/teaching procedures, but can be particularly useful for group learning. C.f., Gibbs and Habeshaw, op cit, especially pp82, 96, 136, 138, 142 etc.
82. C.f, Question 33.
83. C.f, Question 31.
84. Working from small groups back to the main discussion forum.
85. Working from pairs to small group to whole discussion.
86. Small groups in discussion with other small groups.
87. A further 35% of the sample did not know whether or not the strategy was discussed at interviews.
88. C.f., Questions 37-44.
89. i.e., guides produced for RS, not general learning guides from Study Skills.
90. This part of the questionnaire is entitled Perceptions of Teaching.
91. c.f., Questions 7-26 in Appendix B.
92. c.f., Questions 7-11.
93. C.f., Question 9. NB This question was derived from Fox’s theories on teaching style in Personal Theories of Teaching, art. cit, p6. These consist of four models: transfer, shaper, guide, gardener and are discussed in the introduction. These are expressed in the questionnaire as transfer, trainer, guide and catalyst, respectively.
94. C.f., Question 8.
95. Although in Question 10, 25% rated charismatic lecturing above course outlines and handouts.
96. C.f., Question 11.
97. C.f., Question 13.
98. C.f., Question 12 NB This question mirrors teaching styles outlined in Fox’s teaching theories.
99. C.f., Questions 14, 16.
100. C.f, Question 24. NB It was noted in the first part of the questionnaire results that only 20% actually have a standard departmental procedure on learning contracts.
101. C.f., Question 17.
102. C.f., Question 18.
103. C.f., Question 21.
104. C.f., Question 23 NB There are various theories on learning types and there are several questionnaires which assess these (e.g., Honey and Mumford, 1986, in which four types are posited – the activist, reflector, theorist and pragmatist). This links to learning approaches as discussed in the introduction, p 8.
105. This may be reflected in student mix, evidence for group learning/teaching strategies and so on.
106. This includes comments extracted from learning journals and in-house questionnaires on group learning.
107. The department has taken the decision to broaden the type of group learning/teaching and to introduce innovative formats over the next 3 years. To that extent, the course learning/teaching was experimental and feedback following selfreflection will be provided at the departmental ‘thinking-day’ on learning/teaching in the summer vacation.
108. A second teacher collaborated in the development of group learning/teaching practice in his own Level 2 unit, and provided feedback forms to his students on their experience of group learning (in which they had been asked to make a group presentation). This provides additional student feedback.
109. How to meet, allocate tasks and roles etc.
110. Some groups had members missing.
111. This is part of the learning process that is made more visible in group work, in which processes are discussed alongside content.
112. Throughout, I have tried to observe classes at different points in the semester, to demonstrate students working at different stages of development.
113. Although a variety of methodologies are used in biblical units, tutors seem generally to subscribe to rational-scientific methods. Methodologies that are less common demand more of the students, especially as they introduce new theories.
114. In looking at the learning types of this group (from the questionnaire) there was a high proportion of individual and surface learners, which may explain some of the difficulties they expressed about syndicate work. On the other hand, it could reflect a more committed and serious attitude to outcomes given that Level 1 work in this institution does not contribute to final degree results.
115. The department has recently introduced summative assessment for individual presentations, based on an A4 summary.
116. An extra session was held to unpack the relationship between academic and transferable skills, and to discuss the development of essay and presentation skills. A guide to this was provided.
117. e.g., the students had preferred to keep a mix of examinations and essay, preferring not to have portfolio essays without exams. They had also agreed to the introduction of summative assessment for presentations and the obligatory production of a dissertation for all undergraduates.
118. In the same department as Case Study 3.
119. This is a World Religions unit that looks at a specific Islamic nation.
120. An exercise in peer assessment.
121. It has to be said that the students marked much lower than the teacher and any Schadenfreude was reduced when the tutor asked them to consider their reactions to assessment of their own work, noting that they could take heart from the fact that their essays were not marked by fellow students! This was a great exercise in understanding the assessment process and in the development of essay skills by reference to the work of peers.
122. Due to female students leaving for other classes.
123. Gibbs & Habeshaw, op cit, p 23-24.
124. Christian, Jewish and Greek, canonical and non-canonical.
125. The students were assigned weekly preparations organised by topic and could work externally as a group or as individuals. The main aim of this preparation was to be familiar with the content of each weekly topic.
126. Tutors were not present at any of these sessions and students were encouraged to talk frankly about their learning experiences, to make comparisons with other. learning/teaching formats and to make suggestions on how to make improvements. They were also asked to reflect on their own learning styles in relation to group learning.
127. There is a clear course outline in which topics and tasks are given in sequential form, but the learning/teaching format follows a discursive format and is student-led.
128. In this case, the length of summative portfolio essays and formative outlines.
129. It was clear from the questionnaire that the students from this department lacked knowledge on how and where they could get support in skills development. One student did not know anything about tutorials and many did not know about the Study Skills Unit. However, this was not attributable to the tutors who clearly emphasised the availability of these aids. The high confidence levels of these students may suggest that they did not feel the need for these supports.
130. Teaching Quality Assurance exercises and Department of Education policy.
131. 27 in the unit which was not observed but which is referred to on assessment of syndicate projects.
132. In the outline in which project work is assessed, a clear sense of the elements of syndicate work are stressed (e.g, roles, contribution to discussion, the need to organise and manage meetings, the need to develop personal and team arguments, and the need to empathise with other people.) Evidence has to be provided for these. This is in addition to the traditional skills of assimilating, understanding, analysing, synthesising and evaluating knowledge and ideas, and the skills of essay and presentation planning and execution.
133. The negotiated contract consisted of agreement with the tutor over the allocation of roles, the preparation of the project and the format of the presentation (an hour in length). Assessment evaluation was also a negotiated process.
134. This seems to demonstrate the need to ‘foster the development of the whole person.’ C.f., Drane, op cit, p133.
135. The other two institutions had less attractive environments, with a far greater presure on space. However, the students seemed unaware of this.
136. E.g., sharing ideas, confidence building, the broadening out of the topic, the help in selecting areas for individual tasks etc.
137. Students who took part in the case studies only completed the student questionnaire.
138. As in the Staff Questionnaire, the questions used the learning/teaching theories covered in the introduction.
139. C.f., Appendices, C and D. As the results show a distinct variation in learning types which has undoubtedly made analysis difficult, in future questionnaires, I would make questions less nuanced! The fact that a broad spread of learning types is evidenced, however, demonstrates the importance of factoring this into learning/teaching strategies for each group of students and at the level of intake decisions.
140. C.f., Question 34, 42%, 49% and 55% respectively over the levels.
141. C.f., Question 35, 74%, 62% and 55% respectively.
142. C.f., Question 36. This perhaps shows a weakness in the question format.
143. C.f., Question 37.
144. C.f., Question 38. It is unclear as to why this was the case, as questionnaires were completed after discussion with me, and at the end of the courses.
145. C.f., Question 1.
146. This is possibly reflected in the case study 4’s Level 3 figures, in which all the students value group learning as well as individual learning. It forms part of the overall culture of the department and institution.
147. C.f., Question 2.
148. C.f., Questions 3-5.
149. C.f., Question 6.
150. 36%, 35% and 28% resepctively over the 3 levels.
151. C.f., Question 7 (54.5%, 42% and 80% respectively).
152. C.f., Question 10.
153. C.f., Question 8. Formative assessment of essays is less common at Levels 2 and 3 and this may be reflected in the results. It may also reflect an increase in confidence.
154. C.f., Questions 11-12.
155. C.f., Question 14.
156. C.f., Question 16.
157. C.f., Questions 17-18.
158. C.f., Question 15.
159. e.g., more females rate charismatic lecturing than males. Mature students tend to subscribe to traditional learning/teaching methods and show signs of surface learning. But the overall pattern is not clear enough from the questionnaire results.
160. C.f., Questions 19-21.
161. C.f., Questions 22-29.
162. C.f., Questions 24, 25, 26 and 28.
163. C.f., Question 29.
164. C.f., Question 30.
165. C.f., Questions 31-33. This matched the results taken from the in-house feedback questionnaires in Case Study 1.
166. C.f., Question 44. The reduced confidence of Level 2 students is reflected in their lower motivation demonstrated throughout the questionnaire.
167. C.f., Question 45. Assessed projects had been experienced by 20%-45% and syndicate work by 30%-70%.
168. C.f., Questions 46-52.
169. Outlined in 1.2-1.6.
170. Outlined in 1.7.
171. C.f., results in 2.1 and 2.2.
172. Case Study 2.
173. Case Study 4.
174. Case Study 1.
175. C.f., comments from Case Studies 2 & 3.
176. C.f., CRAC programmes and the Research Council’s Graduate School’s programme.
177. I have made considerable use of John Drane’s chapter, on new styles in learning/teaching, op cit. C.f., pp135ff for his consideration of the changing demands of theological education and the wider world.
178. Whilst this is variable from year to year, many departments have strategies (or styles) for student recruitment. This, however, will change if policies that demand widening access are fully applied, necessitating closer scrutiny of how to teach a variety of learning types. C.f., Drane on the use of Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles questionnaires, p146. For references to these questionnaires, c.f.,
179. Ramsden pp-254-57.
180. Drane, p148, C.f, 147ff NB Drane is concerned to develop learning/teaching strategies which incorporate a spiritual and ethical dimension in the form and content of theology courses.
181. He stresses the importance of coffee breaks in long sessions, as these act as a forum for reflection and further questions. I observed this in all the Case Study sessions.
182. C.f., Case Studies 3 and 4.
183. Another format, gleaned from the Graduate Schools’ programme, op cit. n25, is the setting of tasks to syndicate groups, in which they are sent off to read, analyse and evaluate primary and secondary set texts, prior to returning to the class to give a 5- minute presentation before a plenary debriefing session. This could involve arguing different views in order to draw conclusions about the validity of each view.
184. Part of these sessions could include a session on learning types in which students complete questionnaires prior to a discussion session that explains learning strategies in relation to deep and surface approaches. My own experience of this type of session in business, teacher training and at a graduate school, shows that individuals like to compare their own styles with those of others and that further, they try to change their styles, once the weaknesses have been flagged. Their awareness of strengths and weaknesses help them in the evaluation of how to work effectively alone and with others.
185. Drane, p145.
186. C.f., Case Study 3, above, for an excellent example of how to include key skills training into group work that shows relevance to the course content.
187. C.f., Gibbs & Habeshaw, p20. In my own experience in Case Study 1, the reduction of content would have eased the pressures on time, allowing students to better develop those skills demanded in the course outcomes (e.g., critical reading skills, critical thinking in new methodologies).
188. Knowledge of your own learning type would facilitate the flagging of problems that students encounter in teamwork and help in the improvement of team skills.
189. C.f, Drane, pp 142, 143 &145ff.
190. pp145-6: Graeme Gooday. “How do Different Student Constituencies (not) Learn the History and Philosophy of their Subjects? Case Studies from Science, Technology and Medicine” in PRS-LTSN Journal, Vol 1, No. 2, Winter 2002, pp141-155.
191. C.f., Case Study 4, and Drane p 140 on new styles of teaching. Longer seminar sessions enable students to get know each other in a way that encourages the development of group skills. Whilst Drane points out that a 3 or 4 hour session in a suitable environment can be hard to timetable, the trend towards these formats in learning/teaching would suggest that this is an area which the institution will have to resolve. Drane also stresses the need to inculcate a culture of community which reflects Christian ethics and feels that this can be best achieved in these formats. C.f., Drane, p149.
192. C.f., Drane, p150ff and Case Study 4, in which syndicate projects constituted 20% of the summative assessed marks.
193. MacDonald Ross, op cit, p122.
194. C.f, Gooday pp154-5.
Appendices A and B (merged) – General Staff
Survey and Results Age: 25-35: 5%
35-45: 35%
45-55: 30%
55+: 10%
no age given: 20%
Male/Female: (M or F)
M: 75%
F: 25%

Part 1: Cultural Philosophy of your department
Q1. Which of the following descriptions best fits your department?
A/ Traditional Christian Theology (systematics, ethics, philosophy, biblical studies)
B/ World Religions (systematics, ethics, philosophy, study of primary texts)
C/ Christian Theology in the contemporary world (culture, ideology, politics etc)
D/ World Religions in the contemporary world (culture, ideology, politics etc)
E/ General Religious and Philosophical Studies and education (vocational)
F/ A combination of A & B
G/ A combination of A & C
H/ A combination of B & D
I/ Other combinations
A/ 20%
B/ 0%
C/ 0%
D/ 5%
E/ 5%
F/ 25%
G/ 20%
H/ 5%
I/ 20%

Q2: According to the general aims of your department, rate the following categories in order of importance? (Rate from 1-6 next to the category letter, with 1 as the highest)
A/ Production of specialist research
B/ Teaching in specialist research area
C/ Development of individual staff teaching skills
D/ Development of student learning skills
E/ Development of departmental
learning/teaching strategy
F/ Administrative/management Duties
A/ 1-3: 90% 4-6: 5% (0: 5%)
B/ 1-3: 90% 4-6: 5% (0: 5%)
C/ 1-3: 15% 4-6:70% (0: 15%)
D/ 1-3: 50% 4-6: 35% (0: 15%)
E/ 1-3: 25%4-6: 60% (0: 15%)
F/ 1-3: 25% 4-6: 60% (0: 15%)

Q3: According to the general aims of your department, rate the following according to their utility and value to learning. (Rate from 1-4 next to the category letter, with 1 as the highest)
A/ Lectures
B/ Tutorials
C/ Student-led group learning
D/ Tutor-led group learning
A/ 1-2: 65% 3-4: 30% (0: 5%)
B/ 1-2: 40% 3-4: 55% (0: 5%)
C/ 1-2: 15% 3-4: 80% (0: 5%)
D/ 1-2: 65% 3-4: 30% (0: 5%)

Q4: According to the general aims of student learning in your department, what do you want most to see developed in students? (Rate from 1-5 next to the category letter, with 1 as the highest)
A/ Acquisition/reproduction of knowledge
B/ Acquisition of abstract concepts
C/ Acquisition of facts, skills and procedures
D/ Development of critical thinking
E/ Development of a personal sense of reality
A/ 1-2: 25% 3-4: 30% 5: 30% (0:15%)
B/ 1-2: 35% 3-4: 50% 5: 0% (0:15%)
C/ 1-2: 35% 3-4: 50% 5: 5% (0:10%)
D/ 1-2: 80% 3-4: 15% 5: 0% (0: 5%)
E/ 1-2: 25% 3-4: 25% 5:40% (0: 10%)

Q5: According to the general teaching outlook of your department, how are course structures organised? (Rate from 1-4 next to the category letter, with 1 as the highest)
A/ Along cognitive lines
B/ Along affective lines
C/ According to a linear structure
D/ According to a discursive structure
A/ 1-2: 50% 3-4: 10% (0: 40%)
B/ 1-2: 10% 3-4: 50% (0: 40%)
C/ 1-2: 50% 3-4: 10% (0: 40%)
D/ 1-2: 20% 3-4: 40% (0: 40%)

Q6: According to the outlook of your department, how would the following be valued in information sent out to prospective staff and students?
A/ Staff leadership
B/ Vision on learning to an agreed strategy
C/ Communication between staff and students
D/ Provision of key-skills training for development of student potential
E/ Creation of learning environment to agreed goals
F/ Interrogation and review strategies on learning/teaching
A/ 1-2: 15% 3-4: 20% 5-6: 50% 0: 15%
B/ 1-2: 25% 3-4: 25% 5-6: 30% 0: 20%
C/ 1-2: 50% 3-4: 30% 5-6: 5% 0: 15%
D/ 1-2: 30% 3-4: 25% 5-6: 25% 0: 20%
E/ 1-2: 60% 3-4: 25% 5-6: 0% 0:15%
F/ 1-2: 5% 3-4: 30% 5-6: 40% 0:25%

Part 2: Perceptions of the Teaching Process
Q7: Which of the following do you think most influences your approach to teaching?
A/ Personal teaching style
B/ Characteristics of the department as a whole
C/ Education theory/training
A/ 65%
B/ 10%
C/ 25%

Q8:. Which of the following characteristics is most important in a tutor?
A/ The ability to lecture well
B/ The ability to encourage individual learning
C/ The ability to encourage group learning
D/ The ability to assess work
E/ The specialist subject knowledge
A/ 1:15%2: 15% 3:15%4:25% 5:25%0:5%
B/ 1:65%2:10% 3: 20% 4:0% 5:0% 0:5%
C/ 1:0%2: 45%3:10% 4:15%5: 20% 0:5%
D/ 1:0% 2:0% 3: 15% 4: 30% 5:50% 0:5%
E/ 1:10%2:15% 3:40% 4:25% 5:5% 0: 5%

Q9:. Which of the following describes your approach to teaching?
A/ To transfer knowledge of the discipline to the student
B/ To train the student in RS by demonstration, with progress checks through set exercises
C/ To share experience of RS by acting as a guide to their own exploration of the discipline
D/ To aid the process and pace and direction of learning by acting as a catalyst
A/ 10%
B/ 20%
C/ 30%
D/ 40%

Q10: How do you value the following?
A/ Charismatic lecturing
B/ Clear course outline
C/ Clear topic handouts
A/ 1:25% 2: 40% 3: 20% (0: 15%)
B/ 1:55% 2: 10% 3: 20% (0:15%)
C/ 1:20% 2: 35% 3:40% (0:5%)

Q11: Which of the following skills would /you rate as most important?
A/ The ability to encourage independent thinking
B/ The ability to lead class discussion
C/ The ability to facilitate independent and group learning
D/ The ability to make fair assessments
A/ 1:75% 2:10% 3:10% 4: 5%
B/ 1:10% 2:15% 3:45% 4:15% (0:15%)
C/ 1:20% 2:60% 3:5% 4:15%
D/ 1:0% 2:10% 3:30% 4:45% (0:5%)

Q12: What are you looking to develop in your students?
A/ An increase of knowledge/facts
B/ An ability to memorise knowledge/facts
C/ Acquisition, retention and utilisation of facts, procedures and skills
D/ An understanding of abstract concepts
E/ Making sense of reality in a way that is personal and meaningful
A/ 1:25% 2:5% 3:10% (0:60%)
B/ 1:0% 2:0% 3:10% (0:90%)
C/ 1:15% 2:25% 3:15% (0:45%)
D/ 1:5% 2:35% 3:10% (0:50%)
E/ 1:30% 2:25% 3:15% (0: 30%)

Q13: In the delivery of material to students, which of the following best describes your style?
A/ Value-neutrality
B/ Acknowledgement of personal perspectives
C/ Combination of A & B
A/ 0%
B/ 40%
C/ 50%
(0: 10%)

Q14: How much does your choice of teaching format depend on the Level?
G: greatly; S: somewhat; NM: not much
G: 35% S: 60% N/M: 5%

[Q15: Question omitted from analysis

] Q16: Which of the following teaching formats do you think works best?
A/ Lectures with note-taking
B/ Lectures with handouts and note-taking
C/ Lectures with handouts, note-taking and in-class group-set tasks
D/ Lectures with note-taking and whole-class discussion
E/ Lecture series + group discussion in seminars led by lecturer
F/ Lecture series + group discussion in seminars led by students
G/ Lecture series + individual presentations followed by class discussion in seminars
H/ Lecture series + group presentations followed by class discussion in seminars
I/ Lecture series + student-led debates in seminars
J/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and class discussion led by lecturer
K/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and class discussion led by students
L/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and individual presentations followed by class discussion
M/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and group presentations followed by class discussion
N/ Student-led seminars with weekly topics set to groups
O/ Student-led seminars with weekly topics set to individuals
A/ 0%
B/ 0%
C/ 5%
D/ 0%
E/ 15%
F/ 25%
G/ 10%
H/ 10%
I/ 5%
J/ 0%
K/ 0%
L/ 5%
M/ 5%
N/ 10%
O/ 5%
P/ variety: 5%

Q17: Which of the following categories are best served by lectures?
A/ Acquisition/reproduction of knowledge
B/ Acquisition of abstract concepts
C/ Acquisition of facts, skills and procedures
D/ Development of critical thinking
E/ Development of a personal sense of reality
A/ 55%
B/ 15%
C/ 30%
D/ 60%
E/ 5%

Q18: Which of the following categories are best served by group-set work or discussion
A/ Acquisition/reproduction of knowledge
B/ Acquisition of abstract concepts
C/ Acquisition of facts, skills and procedures
D/ Development of critical thinking
E/ Development of a personal sense of reality
A/ 0%
B/ 15%
C/ 25%
D/ 85%
E/ 60%

Q19: Which of the following should be assessed formatively (i.e., for evaluation of progress)?
A/ Essays
B/ Written presentations by individual students
C/ Informal presentations by individual students
D/ Written presentations by groups
E/ Informal presentations by groups
F/ Group projects
G/ Individual contributions to discussion in class
H/ Individual contributions to discussion in tutorials
I/ Learning journals
A/ 100%
B/ 60%
C/ 60%
D/ 30%
E/ 35%
F/ 60%
G/ 50%
H/ 40%
I/ 60%

Q20: Which of the following should be assessed summatively?
A/ Essays
B/ Written presentations by individual students
C/ Informal presentations by individual students
D/ Written presentations by groups
E/ Informal presentations by groups
F/ Group projects
G/ Individual contributions to discussion in class
H/ Individual contributions to discussion in tutorials
I/ Learning journals
A/ 100%
B/ 70%
C/ 5%
D/ 40%
E/ 0%
F/ 30%
G/ 20%
H/ 5%
I/ 25%

Q21: In your opinion, how do students best develop their critical thinking?
A/ Individual written assignments
B/ Group written assignments
C/ Group discussion in class
D/ Group discussion in personal study time
E/ Group discussion in tutorials
A/ 40%
B/ 0%
C/ 25%
D/ 10%
E/ 25%

Q22: In your opinion, in tutorials, on which of the following should the tutor give feedback? (You may circle more than one category)
A/ course content/acquisition of knowledge
B/ reading of primary and secondary material
C/ critical thinking
D/ feedback on essay structure and style
E/ feedback on group or individual
presentation structure and style
F/ feedback on discussion skills
A/ 75%
B/ 80%
C/ 80%
D/ 75%
E/ 65%
F/ 50%

Q23: In your opinion, should the tutor take the following into account in group learning? (You may circle more than one category)
A/ Student intellectual ability in relation to the course level
B/ Student background and circumstances
C/ Gender
D/ The newness and size of subject
E/ Student learning skills (or lack of them)
F/ Student learning ‘type’
A/ 85%
B/ 70%
C/ 70%
D/ 70%
E/ 90%
F/ 50%

Q24: In your view, should the tutor structure any of the following into courses? (You may circle more than one category)
A/ Provision of pre-class preparation tasks for students
B/ Learning contracts (objectives, procedures and criteria, ground-rules and weekly tasks)
A/ 85%
B/ 35%

Q25: In your view, how are the following skills, when taken altogether, best arrived at? (knowledge, comprehension. application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation) best achieved? (Circle one category)
A/ Lectures
B/ Formal debates
C/ Whole group discussion
D/ Individual presentations followed by group discussion
E/ Tutorials
F/ Essays and examinations
A/ 15%
B/ 0%
C/ 20%
D/ 25%
E/ 5%
F/ 35%

Q26: In your view, does group learning improve the quality of the following (You may circle more than one category)
A/ Personal study skills
B/ Confidence in working with peers
C/ Ability to share information
D/ Ability to communicate verbally
E/ Ability to communicate through written presentations
F/ Ability to solve problems
G/ Ability to organise and bring results of private study to the classroom
H/ Confidence towards teacher/lecturer
A/ 40%
B/ 85%
C/ 90%
D/ 90%
E/ 30%
F/ 55%
G/ 65%
H/ 60%

Part 3: Learning/teaching Methods and Strategy of your Department

Q27: On which of the following would you say that your department places the most emphasis? (Circle one category)
A/ Individual learning
B/ Group learning
C/ Combination of individual and group learning
A/ 60%
B/ 0%
C/ 30%

Q28: How does your department rate the following? (Rate from 1-10, with 1 as highest value)
A/ Course design
B/ Specialist knowledge of tutor
C/ Teaching qualifications of tutor
D/ Background and qualifications of students
E/ Numbers in class group
F/ Communication and information technology
G/ Assessment procedures
H/ Learning key-skills requirement
I/ Relation of course content to the world
J/ Relation of key-skills to academic practice/careers
K/ Relation of key-skills to non-vocational careers
A/ 1-3: 50% 4-7: 5% 8-11: 0% 0: 45%
B/ 1-3: 65% 4-7: 0% 8-11: 5% 0: 30%
C/ 1-3: 30% 4-7: 20% 8-11: 5% 0:45%
D/ 1-3: 20% 4-7: 35% 8-11: 5% 0: 40%
E/ 1-3: 0% 4-7: 50% 8-11: 10% 0:40%
F/ 1-3: 5% 4-7: 40% 8-11: 10% 0:45%
G/ 1-3: 30% 4-7: 30% 8-11: 5% 0: 35%
H/ 1-3: 25% 4-7: 15% 8-11: 15% 0: 45%
I/ 1-3: 0% 4-7: 25% 8-11: 30% 0:45%
J/ 1-3: 5% 4-7: 25% 8-11: 30% 0:40%
K/ 1-3: 5% 4-7: 15% 8-11: 45% 0:35%

Q29: Are learning contracts a standard part of teaching learning procedure (including objectives, procedures and criteria, ground-rules and weekly tasks)?
Yes/No:
Yes: 20% No: 80%

Q30: Which of the following formats are used regularly in your department? (Circle as applies)
A/ Individual written-presentation read out to class-group
B/ Individually presenting an argument,
informally, with a prepared handout/OHP for the class
C/ Group written-presentation prepared read out to class-group by one or more of group
D/ Group prepared handout, presented informally by one or more of group
E/ Open discussion
A/ 50%
B/ 60%
C/ 40%
D/ 15%
E/ 100%

Q31: Which of the following methods are used during in-class group tasks? (Circle as applies)
A/ Brainstorming
B/ Buzz word sessions
C/ Crossover groups (working in small groups and then sharing with other small groups)
(D – no option)
E/ Fishbowl groups (working from small groups back to whole group)
F/ Peer tutoring (discussing and assessing each other’s individual or group work)
G/ Snowballing (working in pairs, to small to whole group)
H/ Step-by-step discussion (discussing a planned sequence of issues led by student or teacher)
A/ 50%
B/ 25%
C/ 20%
E/ 60%
F/ 20%
G/ 30%
H/ 30%

Q32: Which of the following methods are used for group-set tasks? (Circle as applies)
A/ Syndicate Projects (mini-projects followed by group presentation or written presentation)
B/ Peer tutoring (discussing and assessing each other’s individual or group work
C/ Allocation of formal roles (e.g., chair/negotiator, researcher, recorder, debater, presenter, designer etc)
A/ 30%
B/ 35%
C/ 10%

Q33: Which of the following are regularly used in whole class discussion? (Circle as applies)
A/ Student-led discussion
B/ Tutor-led discussion
C/ Student-centred discussion
D/ Tutor-centred discussion
A/ 75%
B/ 80%
C/ 50%
D/ 40%

Q34: Which of the following best reflects your department? (Circle one category only)
A/ Recognisable strategy on group learning practice
B/ Variable strategy on group learning practice depending on tutor
C/ Little interest in group learning practice
A/ 15%
B/ 70%
C/ 15%

Q35: Which of the following most applies to your department? (Circle one category only)
A/ Main emphasis on lectures
B/ Main emphasis on lectures + general discussion in seminars
C/ Main emphasis on lectures + individual presentations in seminars
D/ Main emphasis on lectures + group presentations in seminars
E/ Seminar only: mini-lecture + general discussion
F/ Seminar only: mini-lecture + individual presentations
G/ Seminar only: mini-lecture + group presentations
H/ Seminar only: general discussion
II/ Seminar only: individual presentations + discussion
J/ Seminar only: group presentations + discussion
A/ 5%
B/ 35%
C/ 40%
D/ 15%
E/ 0%
F/ 0%
G/ 5%
H/ 0%
I/ 0%
-

Q36 : Does your department discuss how to vary course content against student levels and learning skills (Circle one of the following - G: greatly; S: somewhat; NM: not much)
G: S: NM:
G: 25% S: 50% N/M: 25%

Q37: Do course outlines provide details of the key learning skills students require?
Yes/No:(Y/N)
Yes: 80% No: 20%

Q38: Does your student handbook provide students with details of the key learning skills students require?
Yes/No:(Y/N)
Yes: 65% No: 35%

Q39: Does your department organise special events (skills workshops, induction days etc) designed to encourage working in groups?
Yes/No:(Y/N)
Yes: 55% No: 45%

Q40: Does your department produce key-skills guides on any of the following? (Circle as many as applies)
A/ Lectures and note-taking
B/ Presenting as individuals
C/ Presenting as groups
D/ Whole class discussion
E/ Tutorials
F/ Essay writing
G/ Examination techniques
H/ Critical Reading
I/ Personal Study
J/ Corporate/group study
A/ 33%
B/ 10%
C/ 15%
D/ 5%
E/ 5%
F/ 75%
G/ 30%
H/ 15%
I/ 25%
J/ 0%

Q41: Do you have a departmental policy to discuss the relevance working in groups for graduate interviews and jobs with students in class?
Yes/No:(Y/N)
Yes: 15% No: 85%

Q42: Does the university have a Study Skills centre? Yes/No:(Y/N)
Yes: 85% No: 15%

Q43: Do you check to see if students make use of this?
A/ Never
B/ Sometimes
C/ Often
D/ (not applicable)
A/ 30%
B/ 40%
C/ 15%
D/ 15%

Q44: Do you have a policy to refer students to the centre for help?
Yes/No:
If yes, for which of the following would they be referred?
(Circle as applies)
A/ Essay writing
B/ Individual presentations
C/ Group presentations
D/ Private study techniques
E/ Group study techniques
Yes: 65% No: 20%
not applicable: 15%
A/ 65%
B/ 0%
C/ 0%
D/ 40%
E/ 0%

Q45: Does your department have a corporate strategy on learning/teaching?
Yes/No:
Yes: 65% NO: 35%
Q46: If yes, is this policy regularly up-dated?
Yes/No:
Yes: 60% No: 40%

Q47: If yes, do you discuss in staff recruitment interviews?
Yes/No:
Yes: 35% No: 30%
NOT KNOWN: 35%

Q48: If yes, do you discuss this in staff/student meetings?
Yes/No:
Yes: 65% No: 5%
NOT KNOWN: 30%

Q49: On which of the following do staff receive ongoing training?
A/ Group learning/teaching
B/ Lecturing
C/ Tutorials
D/ Assessment
E/ No formal policy or format
F/ None
A/ 35%
B/ 15%
C/ 15%
D/ 40%
E/ 10%
F/ 5%

Q50: Is this part of a corporate strategy or is it voluntary?
A/Corporate
B/ Voluntary
C/ None available
A/ 20%
B/ 75%
C/ 5%

Appendices C and D (merged) – Student Survey and Results

Part 1: Perceptions of Learning
REPSONSES IN PERCENTAGES OF NUMBERS OF EACH LEVEL
(Some questions are multiple choice. In others, incomplete percentages demonstrate incomplete answers)
m = male
f = female
mat = mature

Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q1: Which do you consider to be more important? (circle one category)
A/ Course content/subject matter
B/ Process/dynamic of how you learn as an individual
C/ Process/dynamic of how you learn with other people
D/ Combination of A + B
E/ Combination of A + C
F/ Combination of A + B + C
5/5/5
0/0/0
0/0/0
5/0/0
0/20/0
20/35/5
0/21
0/0
0/0
21/14
0/0
7/35
0/10/5
5/0/0
0/0/0
10/30/0
0/0/0
0/25/15

Q2. What do you understand the process of learning to be? (circle the letter which comes closest to your approach to learning)
A/ The acquisition/reproduction of knowledge
B/ Memorising course material in a methodical way
C/ The acquisition of facts, skills and procedures
D/ Understanding or abstracting meaning from content
E/ Making sense of reality
10/0/0
0/0/0
5/20/5
20/20/0
5/10/5
7/21
0/7
0/21
14/21
7/0
5/10/15
0/0/0
0/15/5
10/25/0
0/15/0

Q3:. How do you think you best assimilate abstract concepts? (circle the category which comes closest to your style of learning)
A/ Reading primary texts
B/ Reading secondary texts
C/ Note-taking from lectures
D/ Discussion
0/12.5/0
12.5/10/5
12.5/20/0
12.5/10/5
0/21
7/0
0/28
14/36
0/5/0
5/0/5
0/35/10
5/20/5
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q4: Which of the following formats do you prefer to use to present arguments in class? (circle one category which comes closest to your style of learning)
A/ Individual written-presentation read out to class-group
B/ Individually presenting an argument, informally, with a prepared handout/OHP for the class
C/ Group written-presentation prepared read out to class-group by one or more of group D/ Group prepared handout, presented informally by one or more of group
E/ In open discussion
0/5/5
14/5/0
5/5/0
5/14/0
14/23/5
7/7
7/1
0/7
7/14
14 21
5/5/5
0/5/0
0/0/5
0/5/0
15/35/10

Q5: How best do you develop your critical thinking? (Circle one category which comes closest to your style of learning)
A/ Individual written assignments
B/ Group written assignments
C/ Group discussion in class
D/ Group discussion in personal study time
E/ Group discussion in tutorials
16/13/0
5/0/0
5/13/10
13/16/0
0/90
21/35
0/0
7/21
0/0
7/7
5/40/15
5/0/0
5/20/0
0/0/0
0/10/0

Q6: What most motivates your approach to learning?
A/ Fear of not completing the course
B/ Opportunity to learn subject matter
C/ Desire to compete with peers and gain high marks
D/ Opportunity to understand broad outline ideas of course
E/ Ability to interconnect ideas between courses
F/ Desire to please your teacher/lecturer
G/ Develop problem-solving skills
H/ Explore ideas of your own
I/ Understand other people’s ideas
J/ Develop key skills needed for your own discipline
K/ Develop key skills needed in nonvocational careers beyond your degree
9/27/0
26/23/5
5/17/0
5/0/10
5/23/5
0/5/0
0/0/5
17/23/5
22/14/0
0/10/0
0/0/0
7/28
7/21
0/7
7/21
0/21
0/0
0/0
7/14
14/35
7/7
0/14

5/20/0
5/25/10
5/5/0
10/20/5
0/10/5
0/5/0
0/0/0
5/30/0
0/15/10
0/5/5
0/15/5

Q7: Which most influences your approach to learning?
A/ Characteristics of teacher/lecturer
B/ Characteristics of the department as a whole
C/ Your own learning style
22/35/7.5
5/8/0
15/7.5/ 0
14/28
7/7
7/28
20/55/5
0/0/15
0/5/0
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q8: Which of the following should be assessed formatively?
A/ Essays
B/ Written presentations by individual students
C/ Informal presentations by individual students
D/ Written presentations by groups
E/ Informal presentations by groups
F/ Group projects
G/ Individual contributions to discussion in class
H/ Individual contributions to discussion in tutorials
I/ Learning journals
30/50/10
18/20/0
15/0/0
10/15/0
15/10/5
15/20/5
10/0/0
15/0/0
5/0/5
7/28
0/28
14/21
7/21
7/28
14/35

7/0
0/14
0/21
5/10/0
5/10/0
15/45/5
0/15/0
0/40/10
0/20/5
15/25/0
0/30/0
0/30/0

Q9:. Which assessed summatively?
A/ Essays
B/ Written presentations by individual students
C/ Informal presentations by individual students
D/ Written presentations by groups
E/ Informal presentations by groups
F/ Group projects
G/ Individual contributions to discussion in class
H/ Individual contributions to discussion in tutorials
I/ Learning journals
37/50/10
23/20/5
10/15/0
0/5/0
5/10/0
5/15/0
10/5/5
5/0/0
0/0/0/
2/71
28/21
7/14
7/14
7/0
0/14
7/0
0/0
0/0
20/65/15
0/50/5
0/5/0
0/30/0
0/0/5
0/0/5
5/5/0
5/15/0
0/0/0
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q10 Which best suits your style?
A/ Lectures with note-taking
B/ Lectures, handouts and note-taking
C/ Lectures with handouts, note-taking and inclass group tasks
D/ Lectures, note-taking, in-class discussion
E/ Lecture series + group discussion in seminars led by lecturer
F/ Lecture series + group discussion in seminars led by students
G/ Lecture series + individual presentations followed by class discussion in seminars
H/ Lecture series + group presentations followed by class discussion in seminars
I/ Lecture series + student-led debates in seminars
J/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and class discussion led by lecturer
K/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and class discussion led by students
L/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and individual presentations followed by class discussion
M/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and group presentations followed by class discussion
0/36/0
5/36/5
0/10/0
23/5/0
5/0/0
5/0/0
0/0/0
5/0/0
5/0/0
0/5/0
0/0/0
0/0/5
0/0/0
7/0
7/14
7/28
0/21
0/7
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0/0
5/0/5
0/5/10
5/15/0
0/0/0
0/0/0
0/5/0
0/0/0
0/5/0
5/0/0
0/0/0v
0/0/0
0/0/0

Part 2: Perceptions of Teaching
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q11:. Which is the primary role of your tutor?
A/ To provide the content/subject matter of your course by lectures
B/ To facilitate learning
C/ To combine the provision of content with key learning skills
20/14/5
23/18/0
5/23/5
7/35
14/28
7/10
5/15/0
5/25/5
7/5/30

Q12:. Is it part of the tutor’s role to?
A/ Tell you how to think
B/ Tell you what to think
C/ Tell you what skills you need to learn
D/ Tell you how to develop those skills you need to learn
27/5/0
0/0/0
0/18/10
27/50/10
7/0
0/0
7/38
70/15
0/0/0
0/0/0
0/0/5
14/64/10

Q13: In tutorials, on which should the tutor give feedback?
A/ Course content/acquisition of knowledge
B/ Reading of primary and secondary material
C/ Critical thinking
D/ Feedback on essay structure and style
E/ Feedback on group or individual
presentation structure and style
F/ Feedback on discussion skills
30/10
10/27/5
14/27/10
32/54/10
10/32/0
0/18/10
7/14
0/14
7/21
14/71
7/28
7/14
5/30/5
5/30/0
15/35/0
15/35/0
0/40/5
0/20/0

Q14: To which should the tutor give priority?
A/ An increase of knowledge/facts
B/ An ability to memorise knowledge/facts
C/ Acquisition, retention and utilisation of facts, procedures and skills
D/ An understanding of abstract concepts
E/ Making sense of reality in a way that is personal and meaningful
18/23/5
0/0/0
18/14/10
18/23/5
10/18/5
0/21
0/7
7/42
14/21
14/14
15 /15/ 0
0/0/5
0/50/0
5/20/5
10/10/10

Q15: Should the tutor take the following into account in group learning? (You may circle more than one category)
A/ Your intellectual ability in relation to the course level
B/ Your background and circumstances
C/ Your gender
D/ The newness and size of subject
E/ Your learning skills (or lack of them)
22 /55/10
5/0/0
0/0/0
18/45/10
10/25/5
21/42
7/0
0/0
7/35
14 /14
5/40/5
5/0/0
0/0/0
5/40/10
0/50/5
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q16: Should the tutor structure any of the following into courses?
(You may circle more than one category)
A/ Preparation for classes
B/ Opportunities to discuss problem resolution
C/ Learning contracts (objectives, procedures and criteria, ground-rules and weekly tasks)
23/28/0
18/32/5
14/14/5
0/14
14/21
14/14
15/20/0
5/35/15
0/25/10

Q17: Which of the following abilities do you most value in a tutor?
(Instead of circles, number by priority from 1-7, with 1 as highest value)
A/ Charismatic lecturing
B/ Clear course outline
C/ Clear topic handouts
D/ Ability to encourage independent thinking
E/ Ability to lead class discussion
F/ Ability to facilitate independent and group learning
G/ Ability to make fair assessments In rank order
1 /2/1
6/1/4
1/3/5
6/4/2
3/7/3
7/5/5
3/5/4
4/1
1/4
2/2
3/3
4/7
5/5
6/6
1/1/5
2/6/1
2/3/2
2/4/6
5/6/2
7/5/4
6/2/5

Q18: Rate the following characteristics in a tutor:
A/ Their ability to lecture well
B/ Their ability to encourage learning
C/ Their ability to assess your work
D/ Their specialist subject knowledge
In rank order
1/1/1
1/1 /3
3/4/4
4/3/1
1/1
2/2
4/3
3/4
1/1/1
1/4 /2
2/2/4
3/3/3

Part 3: Perceptions of Key Study Skills and Group Learning
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q19: Which of the following skills do you consider to be of most importance in group learning
A/ Being well-prepared
B/ A critical and informed mind
C/ An awareness of the interests/needs of the teacher/leader
D/ An awareness of the interests/needs of your peers
E/ A need to communicate
(questions/answers)
18/22/5
13/13/5
0/5/0
13/10/0
13/17/0
7 /21
7/7
0/0
7/14
14/28
15/15/10
0/5/5
0/0/0
0/5/5
0/30/0

Q20: Which of the following skills do you consider to be of most importance in-class group tasks?
(Circle one category)
A/ Ability to listen to task set
B/ Ability to contribute ideas
C/ Ability to solve problems
D/ Ability to listen to others
E/ Ability to draw conclusions
F/ Ability to record what has been said
G/ Ability to communicate to rest of class
0/0/0
13/13/5
5/5/0
13/17/5
0/9/0
0/0/0
13/9/0
0/0
7/7
0/0
0/21
14/7
7/7
7/21
5/0/0
5/5/10
0/0/0
0/25/5
0/0/0
0/0/5
5/35/0

Q21: Which of the following skills do you consider to be of most importance in out-of-class group-sets? (Circle one category)
A/ Attendance at meetings
B/ Agreeing individual tasks
C/ Sharing evidence from private study
D/ Discussing issues
E/ Making notes from discussion
F/ Agreeing presentation content
G/ Agreeing presentation format
13/13/0
0/5/0
5/5/0
13/26/10
0/0/0
9/5/5
0/0/0
7/14
0/7
7/14
14/21
0/0
7/0
7/0
5/10/0
0/0/0
5/20/5
0/30/15

0/0/0
5/0/0
0/5/0

Q22: Which do you consider to be of most importance in group presentations?
A/ Being active part of group presentation
B/ Making notes on other presentations to share with rest of group
C/ Good communication skills (speaking, visuals etc)
D/ Keeping to time
E/ Providing handouts
F/ Having a good argument
G/ Use of secondary material
0/13/5
0/0/0
9/26/5
0/0/0
0/0/0
26/9/0
5/0/0
7/14
0/0
0/28
0/0
7/7
21/7

0/0
5/40/5
0/0/0
5/20/15
0/0/0
0/0/0
5/5/0
0/0/0
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q23: These categories help in the acquisition of knowledge (measurement, recall, selection, reproduction, presentation (written) exploration (reading/discussing). Which of the following best develops this?
A/ Lecture notes
B/ Personal Study
C/ Group discussion
D/ Group-set projects
E/ In-class group work
17/22/5
17/13/0
0/13/0
0/5/0
0/0/5
14/42
7/28
0/0
0/0
7/0
0/20/5
10/30/5
0/5/0
5/10/0
0/5/5

Q24: These categories help in the acquisition of comprehension (identification, illustration, formulation, explanation, comparison and contrasting). Which of the following best develops this? (Circle one category)
A/ Lecture notes
B/ Personal Study
C/ Group discussion
D/ Group-set projects
E/ In-class group work
9/26/5
13/17/0
17/17/0
0/0/5
0/0/0
0/21
7/21
14 /21
0/0
7/7
0/20/10
5/10/5
0/20/0
0/5/0
10/10/5

Q25: These categories help in the application of knowledge (selection, assessment, sourcing, demonstration). Which best develops this?
A/ Lecture notes
B/ Personal Study
C/ Group discussion
D/ Group-set projects
E/ In-class group work
5/13/5
13/17/0
9/13/0
5/9/5
0/0/0
7/7
21/21
0/35
0/14
7/14
0/5/5
10/20/5
0/10/0
0/5/0
5/25/10

Q26: These categories help in the analysis of knowledge (selection, comparison, differentiation, contrast, breakdown). Which best develops this?
A/ Lecture notes
B/ Personal Study
C/ Group discussion
D/ Group-set projects
E/ In-class group work
9 /0/5
9/13/5
22/22/0
0/0/0
0/9/0
0/14
7/14
14/35
7/0
0/21
0/10/5
10/30/5
5/25/0

0/0/0
0/5/5
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q27: These categories help in the synthesis of knowledge (summarising, argument, relating, precision, organisation, generalisation, conclusion). Which best develops this?
A/ Lecture notes
B/ Personal Study
C/ Group discussion
D/ Group-set projects
E/ In-class group work
5/5/0
13/17/5
9/22/5
9/5/0
0/0/0
0/21
0/21
14/14
14/7
0/7

5/0/0
5/30/5
0/30/10
0/5/0
0/5/5

Q28: These categories help in the evaluation of knowledge (judging, evaluation, evidence and support, criticism/attack, recognition, selection). Which best develops this?
A/ Lecture notes
B/ Personal Study
C/ Group discussion
D/ Group-set projects
E/ In-class group work
5/0/0
13/13/5
17/22/5
0/0/0
0/17/0
0/7
0/14
14/42
0/7
14/0
0/10/0
5/20/5
10/30/10
0/0/0
0/5/5

Q29: In your view how are the above categories (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation) best achieved? (Circle one category)
A/ Lectures
B/ Formal debates
C/ Whole group discussion
D/ Individual presentations followed by group discussion
E/ Tutorials
F/ Essays
13/22/5
0/5/0
5/9/0
0/5/0
0/0/0
13/13/5
21/28
0/0
0/0
7/7
0/0
0/28
0/5/5
0/0/0
0/10/ -
5/- /5
5/5/0
5/50/5

Q30: In your view does group-learning improve the quality of the following:
A/ Personal study skills
B/ Your confidence in working with your peers
C/ Your ability to share information
D/ Your ability to communicate verbally
E/ Your ability to communicate through written presentations
F/ Your ability to solve problems
G/ Your ability to organise and bring results of private study to the classroom
H/ Your confidence towards your teacher/lecturer
17/9/10
17/35/5
17/17/0
17/17/10
9/0/5
9/0/0
13/17/0
5/5/5
7/7
7/42

7/35
21/28
0/14
0/28
21/28
0/7
0/10/5
10/55/10
10/55/5
10/60/5
0/20/5
5/30/0
0/55/0
10/35/5
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q31: Are you happy working in groups:
Yes/No
Yes 26/38/10
No 13/13/0
14/71
14/0
5/65/10
10/0/10

Q32: Do you prefer to work alone:
Yes/No
Yes 39/43/0
No 0/9/9
21/50
9/21
15/50/0
5/30/0

Q33: Do you resent working in groups:
Yes/No
Yes 9/20/0
No 28/34/9
9/0
20/71
0/0/0
0/0/0

Part 4: Departmental Learning/teaching
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q34: Which would you say that your department places the most emphasis?
A/ Individual learning
B/ Group learning
C/ Combination of individual and group learning
28/9/5
0/9/0
9/35/5
14/35
7/0
7/35
5/50/0
0/0/5
10/20/10

Q35: Does your tutor ask you to agree to a learning contract?
Yes/No
Yes 9/17/0
No 30/34/10
0/14
21/57
10/20/10
5/45/10

Q36: Which have you experienced during your time as an undergraduate?
A/ Lectures
B/ Lectures with handouts
C/ Lectures with handouts and in-class group tasks
D/ Lectures and in-class discussion
E/ Lecture series + group discussion in seminars led by lecturer
F/ Lecture series + group discussion in seminars led by students
G/ Lecture series + individual presentations followed by class discussion in seminars
H/ Lecture series + group presentations followed by class discussion in seminars
I/ Lecture series + student-led debates in seminars
J/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and class discussion led by lecturer
K/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and class discussion led by students
L/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and individual presentations followed by class discussion
M/ Seminar only, with mini-lectures and group presentations followed by class discussion
39/52/9
39/52/9
39/52/9
26/21/5
13/17/5
13/26/9
9/5/0
9/21/5
0/0/0
9/0/0
0/5/0
9/5/0
5/5/0
21/50
21/50
14/57
29/43
21/7
21/35
21/28
v 21/28
0/0
14/7
7/7
7/7
0/7
15/65/15
15/65/15
15/78/15
15/50/15
15/35/5
0/35/10
10/40/10
10/10/10
0/5/10
5/25/5
0/5/0
20/20/0
0/0/10
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q37: Which of the following methods have you experienced during in-class group tasks? (Circle categories you have experienced)
A/ Brainstorming
B/ Buzz word sessions
C/ Crossover groups (working in small groups and then sharing with other small groups)
E/ Fishbowl groups (working from small groups back to whole group)
F/ Peer tutoring (discussing and assessing each other’s individual or group work)
G/ Snowballing (working in pairs, to small to whole group)
H/ Step-by-step discussion (discussing a planned sequence of issues led by student or teacher)
9/22/5
5/0/0
9/0/5
9/39/0
13/13/0
0/5/0
9/9/0
21/21
5/0
0/7
21/42
0/0
7/0
7/7
0/15/15
0/7/0
0/10/15
15/45/15
0/0/10
0/10/0
0/10/5

Q38: Which of the following methods have you experienced during in group-sets?
(Circle categories you have experienced)
A/ Syndicate Projects (mini-projects followed by group presentation or written presentation)
B/ Peer tutoring (discussing and assessing each other’s individual or group work
C/ Allocation of formal roles (e.g., chair/negotiator, researcher, recorder, debater, presenter, designer etc)
D/ Production of assessed Group Projects
(written and visually supported projects over a number of weeks)
13/21/10
13/17/0
5/5/0
0/0/0
7/28
7/14
7/36
7/21
0/25/15
0/10/5
0/0/0
5/10/5

Questions 39-43 omitted.

Part 5: Experience of Key Skills
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q44: Which skills did you have before you came to university?
A/ Ability to listen to tutor
B/ Ability to contribute ideas
C/ Ability to solve problems
D/ Ability to listen to your peers
E/ Ability to draw conclusions
F/ Ability to record what has been said
G/ Ability to communicate to rest of class
35/48/5
30/30/10
22/26/5
22/35/10
30/26/5
35/30/10
26/22/5
14/50
14/42
14/35
7/42
14/42
7/42
7/35
15/65/10
15/60/5
15/45/5
15/55/10
15/30/5

15/55/10
15/55/0

Q45: Which group skills did you experience before you came to university?
A/ Working in small groups in class
B/ Working in group-sets (syndicates) outside the classroom
C/ Preparing group presentations
D/ Organising and attending meetings
E/ Agreeing individual tasks
F/ Sharing evidence from private study with group-set
G/ Discussing issues
H/ Making notes from group discussion
I/ Agreeing presentation content
J/ Agreeing presentation format
K/ Peer tutoring
L/ Brainstorming
M/ Buzz word sessions
N/ Fishbowl groups (working from small groups back to whole class)
O/ Individual presentations to whole group followed by general discussion
P/ Formal Debates
Q/ Snowballing (working in pairs, to small groups to whole class)
R/ Step-by-step discussion
S/ Tutorials
T/ Assessed Group Projects
35/40/5
17/13/0
26/26/5
22/17/10
30/17/5
26/30/5
39/52/9
22/30/9
30/17/5
22/13/5
13/13/5
26/22 /5
5/17/0
22/30/0

30/26/0
26/22/5
5/17/0
22/17/0
22/30/0
9/5/5
29/57
14/28
14/35
7/28
7/28
14/21
21/50
14/21
14/21
14/21
7/0
21/21
7/14
21/21
7/21
7/35
7/14
14/14
7/21
0/21
10/70/15
10/55/5
15/60/10
15/60/5
15/50/10
10/30/0
15/65/15
15/45/5
15/45/0
15/45/0
5/25/5
5/35/10
5/5 /-
5/25/5
10/30/10
10/35/10
5/20/0
5/15/0
10/15/0
15/30/ -

Q46: Does your course outline provide you with details of the key learning skills you will require?
Yes/No
Yes 39/52/9
No 0/0/0
28/71
0/0
15/65/10
0/0/0
Level: 1
m/f/mat
2
m/f
3
m/f/mat

Q47: Does your student handbook provide you with details of the key learning skills you will require?
Yes/No
Yes 39/52/9
No 0/0/0
28/71
0/0
10/60/20
0/0/0

Q48: Does your department organise special events designed to encourage working in groups?
Yes/No
Yes 39/52/9
No 0/0/0
57/14
21/7
0/0/0
15/60/10

Q49: Does your department discuss the relevance of working in groups for graduate interviews and jobs?
Yes/No
Yes 0/0/0
No 39/52/0
21/35
7/35
0/0/0
15/65/10

Q50: Does the university have a Study Skills Centre?
Yes/No
Yes 39/52/9
No 0/0/0
28/71
0/0
0/35/10
15/40/0

Q51: Do you make use of this? A/ Never
B/ Sometimes
C/ Often
30/47/0
9/5/9
0/0/0
28/57
0/14
0/0
0/5/0
0/0/20
0/0/0

Q52: On which of the following key skills would you seek help?
A/ Essay writing
B/ Individual presentations
C/ Group presentations
D/ Private study techniques
E/ Group study techniques
17/345
0/13/0
5/5/0
26/26/5
13/5/5
28/45
0/14
0/0
7/35
0/0
10/50/5
5/20/5
0/20/0
5/10/5
0/10/5

Bibliography
1. Drane, J. W., Cultural Change and Biblical Faith (Carlisle, Paternoster), 2000, Chapter 7, pp129-153.
2. Drane, J. W., “Theological Education for the Third Millennium”, British Journal of Theological Education, 6/3 (1994-5), pp3-8.
3. Fox, D., “Personal Theories of Teaching” in Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 8, No 2, 1983, pp151-163.
4. Fry, H., Keteridge S & Marshall S., A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (London, Kogan Page) 1999.
5. Gibbs, G. & Habeshaw T., Preparing to Teach: an Introduction to Effective Teaching in Higher Education (Trowbridge, The Cromwell Press) 1989.
6. Gooday, G., “How do Different Student Constituencies (not) Learn the History and Philosophy of their Subjects? Case Studes from Science, Technology and Medicine”, The PRS-LTSN Journal, Vol. 1, No 2, Winter 2002, pp141-155.
7. Jacques, David, Learning in Groups (London, Kogan Page) 1992.
8. Macdonald Ross, George, “External Pressures on Teaching”, The PRS-LTSN Journal, Vol. 1, No 2, Winter 2002, pp98-129.
9. Ramsden, Paul, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London, Routledge) 1992. Websites
10. Honey & Mumford. Learning Styles Questionnaires, http://www.psi-press.co.uk
11. PRS-LTSN document on research areas, 2001,PRS-LTSN 2001 questionnaire, http://www.prs-ltsn.leeds.ac.uk/policies/publications
12. Research Council’s Graduate School’s Programme, July, 2000, http://www.gradschools.ac.uk
13. The National Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997 (the ‘Dearing Report’), http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe
14. Department of Theology, University of Exeter, http://www.ex.ac.uk/theology
15. Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Bristol, http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/THRS
16. Department of Theology and Philosophy at The University College of St Mark & St.John, Plymouth, http://www.marjon.ac.uk/courses/course_info/ba_theology.asp
17. Rosemary Beckham – A Preliminary Study of Group Learning/Teaching

Return to vol. 2 no. 2 index page

Created on: January 6th 2010

Updated on: August 19th 2010

Supporting Philosophy, Theology, Religious Studies, History of Science and Philosophy of Science

Please note that as of the 1st of August 2011 the Subject Centre for PRS entered a 5 month transition phase prior to its closure on the 31st of December 2011. Most pages on this website are no longer being updated, apart from resources from the last academic year's activities.

PDF Download