Self Portraits and Perpetual Motion: The Student Experience of
Informed Choice and Feedback
Jennifer BLAKE1 (Teaching and Learning Support Office, University of Manchester, UK) jennifer.blake@manchester.ac.uk
Patricia CLIFT MARTIN (Teaching and Learning Support Office, University of
Manchester, UK) - patricia.clift@manchester.ac.uk
Louise WALMSLEY (Teaching and Learning Support Office, University of Manchester,
UK) - louise.walmsley@manchester.ac.uk
Valerie WASS (Keele Medical School, Keele University, UK) - v.j.wass@hfac.keele.ac.uk
Abstract:
With the goal of universal higher education and the growth in multiple careers for many there has been
significant expansion in the skills and associated strategies that Universities must communicate to
students, especially around the employability agenda (Cochrane & Straker, 2005, Ertl et al., 2008)
Resources exist to facilitate informed choice but organization and presentation of resources is essential.
Universities must understand which resources are most useful for students to avoid the “paralysis [that]
is a consequence of having too many choices.” (Schwartz, 2005). This study uses focus groups and
interviews with students in three disciplines with contrasting curricula structures and career paths to
discover how students make informed choices, which resources they use and the utility of feedback and
resources currently offered. Initial findings show that available resources need to be valid, verified and
limited. The interaction between student and university can only be enriched by a deeper
comprehension of choice processes and how resources and support can be positioned most effectively.
(Foskett & Hemsley-Brown, 2001) This study will highlight resources that students feel contribute to
informed choices and to discover what role students and university play in designing and validating
resources.
One resource available to students is academic feedback. Feedback can be used by students and faculty
to inform choice and provide guidance and as an opportunity for students to develop a sense of their
strengths and weaknesses (Hounsell, McCune, Hounsell, & Litjens, 2008). If students are to form
portraits of themselves as learners then self-awareness and the ability to recognize aspects of their
abilities are essential. Through integrating effective feedback the portrait they develop becomes more
accurate. This paper will report on initial findings with regard to the student experience of feedback
structures, and its impact on their learning. This research has implications for student learning styles,
resource creation, and the use of feedback as a tool students can use to become an active contributor to
the learning process.
Keywords: Feedback, choice, student, informed, resources
1. Introduction
The HEARing Student Voices project is a two-year research project funded by the Higher
Education Academy as part of the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme Projects (The
1
Address for correspondence: Jennifer Blake, Teaching and Learning Support Office, University of
Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom (phone: 0044 1613061553)
15
Higher Education Academy, 2010). All projects funded through this scheme have the
involvement of a National Teaching Fellow and have been through a rigorous two-stage
bidding process. This project was developed in response to other initiatives nationally and
institutionally at the University of Manchester where the project is based.
Manchester is the UK’s largest single site university with over 27,000 undergraduates, nearly
10,000 postgraduates and more than 5,800 academic and research staff. There are more than
500 degree programmes encompassing a wide range of disciplines from Art History to
Zoology grouped across 22 schools in four faculties. Although there are many resources
available to students to help them navigate the curriculum including tutors, websites, peers,
course handbooks and careers guidance, we know little about what they are actually using
and what makes the resources that they use useful and valid.
Since 2005, a National Student Survey has been conducted across all universities in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland, and some in Scotland. The survey is open to all final year
undergraduates and asks questions on a range of issues around the student experience,
primarily related to their programme and overall satisfaction. One of the areas which is
analysed through the survey is ‘assessment and feedback’. In many universities, especially
larger ones, this is a weaker area and more work needs to be done to develop a better
understanding between staff and students of the assessment process and the opportunities for
receiving and using feedback.
In 2007 the University of Manchester embarked on a Review of Undergraduate Education to
address these issues. The review encompassed all areas of the student experience from
admissions to graduation. One of the recommendations from the Review Task Forces was
that the University should be at the forefront of developments surrounding a new national
initiative, the Higher Education Achievement Report.
The Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) is a UK national initiative currently in
the second phase of institutional trials. The HEAR developed from the work of the Burgess
Group which was tasked with determining whether the UK degree classification model was
broadly fit for purpose, and if there were any changes that needed to be made. The group
concluded that the degree classification was fit for purpose but that additional information on
15
the achievement of students over and above the classification and the transcript would be of
benefit to students, employers, and postgraduate admissions tutors (Universities UK, 2007).
Building on the prior implementation of the European Diploma Supplement (EDS) (European
Commission, 2009) the Group proposed that a document be produced which encompassed
the EDS requirements but also gave a broader picture of an individual’s achievement within
higher education. This document became known as the Higher Education Achievement
Report.
The main features of the report that differ from the EDS are an increased level of detail in the
academic transcript information, (thesis or project titles, placement information etc) and
considerably more information on extra-curricular activities such as volunteering, roles and
responsibilities, prizes and awards, and additional training.
Although the HEAR was originally described as a summative document to give additional
information over and above the final grades of a student there has been an increasing
movement to use the HEAR as a developmental resource to support the academic, personal
and career development of students whilst on their course of study. To this end the University
of Manchester is also pursuing the production of a formative HEAR which will likely take
the form of an extract from the HEAR data-set and will be presented to students and available
to their academic tutors. This formative HEAR will be informed by this research project to
ensure it meets student needs and enhances the educational process.
2. HEARing Student Voices Project
Throughout their studies students make choices about the academic and non-academic
activities that they engage in. Many of these activities support their personal and professional
development and help them achieve their career goals in an increasingly competitive job
market. We were faced with two dilemmas: How do students across a range of different
curricula make career choices and what is the optimum form of feedback which can most
usefully support the development of the HEAR format.
The project aims to research how:
●
Students make educational choices within differently structured curricula
●
Employment aspirations influence choice
15
●
The HEAR can best be designed to meet student needs
●
Formative student assessment can influence career development.
Our initial questions are:
●
What factors influence student choice of units within the curriculum and what are
their preferences for feedback?
●
How can a HEAR be best constructed to inform choice and maximise use of
feedback?
Phase 1 of the project consists of focus groups and interviews with students and staff with
structured questions on defining and making choices, the resources that are used or required
for making informed choices, and on defining and using feedback. A better understanding of
how students navigate through different contrasting curricula will enhance our approach to
curriculum design and development and how we support and advise students as they learn.
This phase of the project will be completed by summer 2010.
Phase 2: In this phase of the project students and staff will engage in facilitated action
research to explore different models for the presentation and content of a formative HEAR
and how it might be used to inform student choices. The results of this project will inform the
way the University of Manchester implements the formative HEAR and will be widely
disseminated to inform practice at other universities.
This paper focuses on the methodology and framework of Phase 1 of this project. At this time
the results are still being analysed therefore only brief findings are presented.
3. Literature Review
Higher education in the UK has seen a great deal of change in the last decade. With the
massification of higher education, and the decline of the idea of one job for life, the skills and
strategies universities must make explicit to their students have multiplied (Cochrane &
Straker, 2005). The economic crisis, and consequent impact on employment, is a pressing
issue for those preparing for or currently in the job market. All of these concerns have career
and educational implications and the employability agenda is one that requires universities to
work toward developing the autonomous learner with transferable skills (Ertl et al., 2008).
15
However, although it has been recognized that students face increasing pressures to exhibit
reflective thinking skills, thoughtful decision-making and the habits of a life long learner
(Gosling, 2003), comparatively little research has been done to explore the resources that
students use to “navigate” the curriculum and to make career choices through which they
develop these skills. Although a number of studies have looked into the motivation behind
the choices students make (Breen, 1999; Young, 2000) relatively few have delved into the
process that lies behind, and informs the choices—or whether students could be said to be
making any sort of “informed” choice at all.
It was evident in at least one study that students were taking the “path of least resistance” in
their decision-making and that there was very little forward-planning (Cochrane & Straker,
2005). This lack of method in decision-making has further implications because, although
“motivation is a hypothetical construct inferred from and indirectly based on an individual’s
behaviour” (Curasi & Burkhalter, 2009, p. 4), and students in different disciplines may
describe different motivations for their choices (Breen & Lindsay, 2002), understanding the
processes making informed choices could benefit all disciplines. The nature of the discipline
with regard to curriculum structure, professional outcomes and available support, and the
culture of the learning environment may have a significant impact on the mechanics of
student choices as both the goals and the structure of support offered by degree programmes
can vary widely.
Understanding how students use resources to make decisions could also be used to inform
and enrich personal development planning. As one of the goals of personal development
planning is to highlight and hone the “meta-skills in reflection and self-direction” (O'Connell,
2003, p.17 ), better knowledge of the resources that students are currently using could be used
to inform meetings with academic advisors, who provide students with academic
development advice within their discipline. One of the resources available to university
students is feedback. Feedback, both formative and summative, can be used by students and
staff as tools for choice and guidance. (Hounsell et. al., 2008). However, to be useful, the
feedback must not simply be “constructive and timely” but also assist students to identify
areas of improvement and set in place action plans to achieve this; in effect, feedback must
not merely justify the mark, but encourage further learning as well (Hounsell et al., 2008;
Pitts, 2005). The concept of a feedback loop, which includes the student, advisors, lecturers,
15
and others, and constantly informs and clarifies, could help lighten the burden on the student
to be the one to assimilate and understand all of the feedback he or she receives.
Understanding the places students go to for information could help to make the formative
HEAR and other feedback more student relevant and help ensure that it is used to help inform
future decisions. In looking at how students navigate their choices in curricula, we will be
able to devise better tools, like the formative HEAR, to help them. In their literature review
of the student experience, Ertl et al. (2008) find that there is a “need to go beyond
‘information transmission’ where students are in passive mode, to involve students actively.”
(p. 9). Looking at what resources students use will help maximize the dialogue between
teachers and students and, hopefully, help feedback and other assessment feel like less of a
bureaucratic process and more a part of student learning (Ertl et al., 2008).
4. Study Methodology
Using focus groups in this study allows us to make the student learning experience the centre
of the study and to carefully investigate vocabulary and language use. There was also
potential for engagement in the focus groups to foster interest in the Phase 2 action research.
We decided to use qualitative methods in this study because the possibilities of in-depth
narrative investigation because it was thought that the narrative possibilities of focus groups
and interviews would allow us to explore the definitions and culture surrounding choice,
feedback, and resources and build theoretical frameworks on which to enhance our
understanding of student approaches to navigating the curriculum and reaching appropriate
career choices. The qualitative nature of the project also allows us to explore the individual
differences and definitions of these topics. Focus groups generate primarily qualitative data
and serve as records of the individual members of the group and also of the interactions and
reactions of the group as a whole, thus providing a unique snapshot of group opinions and
discussions while allowing for individual differences. It is in this way that focus groups differ
from the broader category of “group interview” as the focus groups deliberately take into
account ‘the explicit use of group interaction’ (Merton, 1987). This emphasis also clearly
separates it from individual interviews as the focus group data is equally dependent on the
interactions between the participants (Cronin, 2002).
15
The decision to add interviews in addition to the focus group was taken in order to triangulate
the data that had previously been gathered and to ensure saturation of themes. It was felt that
the in-depth nature of the interviews might allow for deeper understanding of the context of
the data. In addition, as is stated below, recruitment was an issue, and additional interviews
were scheduled where recruitment for the focus groups was difficult.
Julius Sim (1998) mentions a number of advantages to focus groups including being an
economical way of interviewing a number of different respondents, providing information on
the dynamics of a group, encouraging spontaneity, possibly providing a ‘safe’ forum as
respondents may not feel pressured to answer every question, and the opportunity for the
participants of feel supported by a ‘sense of group membership’ (Sim, 1998). This is valuable
to the researcher for a number of reasons, not least of which is the chance to observe a
discussion on the underlying assumptions that form the culture of the group being studied. In
this study, it means that the students, staff and their experiences are the central reference
points for analysis.
We focused on three contrasting curricula within the University of Manchester with
structures which potentially impact differently on student choice: (a) Pharmacy: a highly
structured programme with a definite career outcome; (b) BA/BSc Geography: a large
honours degree programme with a medium level of structure around a mix of core and
optional units with no definite career outcome; and (c) BA English, a relatively unstructured
honours degree programme with a wide choice of units and no compulsory final year units
other than a dissertation. By choosing these contrasting programmes we aim to explore the
self-directed learning needs of a diverse range of students in contrasting learning
environments and ensure that the findings are generalisable across different curricula
structures.
As a first step, questions were formulated from the literature review and piloted with a group
of ten second, third, and fourth year students from different disciplines, drawn from students
who have already worked with the Teaching and Learning Support Office. This exploratory
group met once for 80 minutes. The meeting was recorded, transcribed and cross checked
against the literature to ensure that all relevant areas were covered by the question set. After
the pilot focus group, only very minor changes were made to the questions (Appendix 1).
15
Recruitment of student volunteers for the focus groups and individual interviews was done
through email recruitment and general information sessions. This method was problematic as
the response rate was not high, and it is possible that the participants were self-selecting from
strongly motivated students therefore an effort was made to discover whether or not the
experiences described by the participants were “typical” experiences in the degree
programme. In addition, where response rates for the focus groups were especially low,
further individual interviews were scheduled in an effort to get a better picture of the degree
programme.
After the recruitment process, the first focus groups of students were formed in curricula
groups. Focus groups can range from four to twelve participants. Traditionally, between six
and ten people have been considered “ideal”, but there has been some discussion that smaller
groups of four to six can be of benefit as they allow for greater exploration of the individual
opinions and stories within the group (Cronin, 2002; Munday, 2006). These groups met two
times for 80 minutes each. A summary of participant numbers is included as Table 1. There
was a disparity between disciplines in recruitment to focus groups with lower participation
from English Literature. It is possible that the difficulty in recruitment stems partly from the
amorphous and relatively unstructured nature of the English Literature degree programme.
As there are no required units or entire-year meetings recruitment information sessions were
done by visiting individual units so the whole year group may not have been aware of the
opportunity.
For the second set of focus groups new participants were recruited and mixed focus groups
covering the three disciplines were set up with the hypothesis that giving the participants an
opportunity to compare experiences would allow for more general discussion on resources
necessary for all students, instead of discipline specific issues. It was hoped that the
discussion between disciplines would highlight any differences in the definitions of informed
choice and feedback and elicit further community definitions and realities. Enough students
were recruited to run two mixed discipline focus groups. Again, it was most difficult to
recruit from the English degree programme, and it was decided that additional individual
interviews would be sought to attempt to balance the data.
15
Table 1:University of Manchester Participant Numbers (at May 2010)
Pure
Mixed Discipline
Mixed Discipline
Discipline
1
2
Geography
8
2
2
3 scheduled
15
English
4
3
3
5
15
Literature
Pharmacy
Interviews
Discipline
totals
completed
10
2
4
3
19
completed
22
7
6
11
49
We expanded the study beyond Manchester and scheduled three focus groups at Northumbria
University in Newcastle, England.
Groups were scheduled with Social Work, English
Literature, and Geography students. Northumbria does not offer Pharmacy therefore Social
Work was chosen as it is highly structured, leads to professional accreditation, and involves
placements away from the University. Students were recruited by a colleague from
Northumbria. There was an excellent response from the Social Work participants, but, once
again, there was difficulty in recruiting English Literature participants, and there were
additional issues with Geography recruitment. These problems could be attributed to the
tightness of the scheduling of the groups, which interfered with some course meeting times.
In addition, because the project had not been begun at Northumbria, there was not the same
level of preparation of staff and students as at Manchester, something that could also have
contributed to the issues with recruitment.
The study began with the creation of the questions for the focus groups. These questions
were designed to be conversational and purposefully structured to encourage the sharing of
personal stories. They began with a general opening question designed to introduce members
of the group to one another and identify their names and voices for use on the audio
recording. After the opening question, the study followed Krueger’s suggested sequence of
introductory, transition, key, and ending questions (Krueger, 1998). These questions are
designed to allow the participants to begin by exploring the topics under discussion and
creating a shared vocabulary for the rest of the meeting. This community definition was key
in the exploration of topics such as feedback, as it became clear that establishing common
definitions of these elements allowed the participants to discuss wider implications and
explore meaning. Each topic (choice, feedback, career plans) was treated as its own question
15
section with an introductory, a key question, several transition/follow up questions, and one
ending question per topic. Additionally, attention was paid to the final questions to prompt
discussion of what a “typical” experience might be in each degree programme in order to
establish whether any of the participants felt as if their experience had been outside the norm
for any reason.
4.1 Analysis methods
The main qualitative analysis methodology used is a constructivist form of grounded theory,
using pre-existing theory to provide ‘sensitising concepts’ (Bowen, 2008), whilst using
purposive, iterative sampling and constant comparative analysis to arrive at trustworthy
conclusions. The project is conceptually orientated towards social learning theory which
interprets learning in terms of the interaction between the individual and the social milieu
within which they learn, emphasising learner empowerment and development of a sense of
self efficacy (Salomen & Perkins, 1998). The decision was taken to use grounded theory to
search out a complete picture of the interactions between the participants, the cultures of the
different curricula, and the realities of choice, feedback, and career planning. As the results
are so dependent on the participants’ own experiences, it was thought that the grounded
theory methodology would allow for the greatest scope in analysis.
The focus groups and interviews were transcribed indicating any lengthy pauses or
conversation fillers as well as everything said. Once transcribed, Nvivo, a qualitative data
analysis program, was used to code and sort the data. Because Nvivo allows for multiple
codes to be applied to text blocks of different sizes (from single letters or words to entire
paragraphs or transcripts) it is possible to explore the data in a number of ways. We used
codes as a method for developing the themes that were coming out of the transcript data. We
used additional codes to indicate the speaker, the specifics of the focus group
(mixed/discipline pure), and the question group prompting the specific discussion. This
particular code provided important as it became apparent that the question path was working
to facilitate the answers the participants were giving.
4.2 Emergent findings
The focus group method fits neatly into this project because of its ability to be both flexible
and deliberately planned. Because the questions allowed for a wide range of responses, we
15
were able to ensure that each of the participants had a chance to “practise” contributing with a
definition before being asked to share stories or personal opinions. It allowed for a sense of
community to build which then supported more in depth and frank discussion on improving
feedback and enhancing resources. The addition of individual interviews allowed us to
triangulate the data gathered in the focus groups and make contact with students that were
unwilling to participate in the group setting.
The set-up of the questions allowed investigation into the differences between the ideal
situation with choice and feedback and the reality, both in the resources available and the
students’ use of those resources. The flow of the questions and the focus group as a safe
space allows a discussion of what could be a heated subject to change focus and become
more an exercise in community building—because it is not just participants demanding the
ideal but a discussion of the reality on both sides.
The questions were designed to first establish a common definition of the topic under
consideration. For example, the first question asked about informed choice is:
“When you hear the words ‘informed choice’, what comes to mind?” This prompted a range
of definitions from a choice where one has spent time “considering all the different options,
seeing all the different sides” to where “someone has sat down with you and has given you
some information.” The follow up question, which invited participants to begin thinking
about themselves by asking “Do you feel able to make informed choices?” also prompted
most to claim that they do/have made informed choices in their lives (occasionally with some
frequency). However, while most answered in the affirmative when asked whether they felt
able to make informed choices, when asked, in the next question, to tell the story of a recent
choice they had made in their degree programme, most described that curricula choices (i.e.
choices on units and essays) were often made from little information or by “shooting in the
dark” as opposed to real informed choice.
These differences allowed the participants to further refine their original definitions of, in this
case, informed choice. The result was a list of resources that participants felt they needed to
access in order to make these choices. This change in the discussion changed the focus of the
analysis because it implied that, although informed choices are often defined as something
made independently, the availability and ease of use of the resources participants needed to
make informed choices were clearly important.
15
In the case of feedback, a similar questioning path was created. When the definition of
feedback was requested, many participants described a situation where feedback would be
used to improve or change methods of work or choices in the future. However, when the
follow up questions were asked in order to prompt specific stories about use of feedback, it
became clear that the abstract definition of feedback and the concrete examples illustrated a
disconnect between definition and real life use. This process of discussion allowed the
students to establish a group definition, almost a definition of an “ideal” format and response
to feedback that could be used as a springboard for discussions of the reality of feedback and
what is needed for useful feedback.
The effort to create group definition of the topics in the study also allows for fruitful cross
group comparison. As the terms have been explicitly defined, it allows for more effective
comparisons across the various focus groups, both where the groups agree and, perhaps more
interestingly, where they disagree (Hounsell et al., 2008; Morgan & Krueger, 1993). The
progression from abstract definition to concrete personal story creates a rich seam of data to
draw from, especially in areas such as feedback and choice where implications of the
differences between the community declaration and actual practice are telling. For example, a
number of students stated positively that they used feedback to improve their learning but
very few were able to give a concrete example.
Originally it was our intent to use the data to create a formative document (termed the
formative HEAR) to help with independent choice and career-planning. However, it became
clear through the focus groups that the document would be better placed to work as a
formative feedback document. In these cases, the feedback “loop” was being treated as if it
were a perpetual motion machine, as something that needed no input beyond the original
dissemination of the feedback. The participants reported feedback that rarely went beyond a
specific assignment or unit and difficulty with blending feedback from a variety of sources,
all of which would interfere with the “loop” that enables students to take on feedback and use
it to inform choices and further studies.
This difficulty synthesizing feedback also led to discussions about personal development and
some aspects of the community in each degree programme. Students often mention wishing
that there was a more personal relationship with some member of staff that would allow them
15
to feel comfortable seeking help with issues such as understanding feedback from courses.
This situation is analogous to a painter creating a self portrait, where the use of a mirror
actually creates a reverse image of the reality. As the students are working alone, it is difficult
for them to assimilate and synthesize the variety of feedback they receive and create and
complete and accurate picture. These issues are complicated by a nexus of militating factors
that is often vague, leaving students with no clear map to indicate how they should go about
learning or even searching for help. There are also implications about the learning
environment present in each degree programme, something we hope to investigate further.
These results are all extremely preliminary, but indications for improvement in practice and
further investigation into feedback, choice, and resources are clear. A clear message is
emerging that feedback and/or a HEAR framework alone is not enough. Students appear to
need support in responding to and harnessing feedback to help them synthesise this into
meaningful learning action plans or career development.
5. Further research
5.1 Phase 2 Plans
Of particular interest to this study is the use of focus groups as a component of, or preparation
for, an action research project. As action research requires engagement of participants in
working towards a product or change, focus groups are valuable because of their potential to
engage the participants in the research (Chiu, 2003). Focus groups (partially because of the
previously mentioned possibility of a ‘safe space’) frequently seem an appropriate method for
investigating topics that could be sensitive or embarrassing for the participants (Kitzinger,
1994). This encouragement of openness and discussion can have a powerful impact on
informing the rest of the action research project as participant engagement can have a
dramatic impact on the success of the research. Focus groups can also serve as opportunities
for transmission of knowledge within a group, helping to make sure all of the participants in
the action research segment of the project begin with a complete understanding of the issues
being addressed and with a sense of ownership of the topics being discussed and the solutions
or changes being proposed. With this in mind, beginning an action research project with a
series of focus groups not only allows the researcher to gather pertinent data for the formation
of the rest of the project but also encourages the participants to actively engage in the entirety
of the study.
15
Initial interest in the second phase of the study has been positive. Most students seem
extremely interested in participating in the action research phase of the project. Students will
be actively involved in the action research model used to construct, pilot and compare
formats for the annual formative HEAR.
An exploratory trial will be conducted to develop and compare formats for the formative
HEAR. According to the Phase 1 findings, two or three alternative formative HEAR formats
will be piloted. Different forms of assessment of the unit/programme content (self and/or
peer, formative versus summative) will be explored in response to the Phase 1 findings. This
will be developed with students to harness their beliefs and maximise use of the structures
offered by the different curricula.
Evaluation of the outcomes of the formative HEAR, i.e. level of self-awareness, progress in
personal development and success of career management will be undertaken by the
researcher. These participating students will receive personal written feedback on the findings
and will be actively involved in the development of the final format for the formative HEAR
which will hopefully be rolled out to all undergraduate students the following year. Student
feedback throughout will be harnessed to ensure a student friendly HEAR is ultimately
produced.
6. References
Bowen, G. (2008). Grounded Theory and Sensitising Concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5,
(3) 1-9.
Breen, R. (1999). Academic research and student motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 24 (1). 75-93
Breen, R., & Lindsay, R. (2002). Different Disciplines Require Different Motivations for Student Success.
Research in Higher Education, 43 (6), 693-725.
Chiu, L. F. (2003). Transformation Potential of Focus Group Practice in Participatory Action Research. Action
Research, 1, 165-183.
Cochrane, M., & Straker, K. (2005). Secondary School Vocational Pathways: a critical analysis and evaluation.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference.
Cronin, A. (2002). Researching Social Life. London: Sage.
Curasi, C. & Burkhalter, J. (2009). An Examination of the Motivation of Business University Students. Business
Education Digest, 18 (Dec) 1-18.
15
Ertl, H., Hayward, G., Wright, S., Edwards, A., Lunt, I., Mills, D. & Yu, K. (2008). The Student Learning
Experience in Higher Education: Literature Review Report for the Higher Education Academy. (H. E.
Academy).
European Commission, Education and Training (2009, June 3 rd) The Diploma Supplement. Retrieved April 21,
2010 from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc1239_en.htm.
Foskett, N., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2001). Choosing futures: young people's decision-making in education,
training, and careers markets. London Routledge/Falmer.
Gosling, D. (Ed.). (2003). Personal Development Planning (Vol. 115). Birmingham Staff and Educational
Development Association.
Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students.
Higher Education Research and Development, 27 (1), 13.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research
participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16 (1). 104-121
Krueger, R. A. (1998). Developing Questions for Focus Groups (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Merton, R. (1987). The focused interview and focus group: continuities and discontinuities. Public Opinion
Quarterly, (51), 550-566.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. Newbury Park: Sage.
Munday, J. (2006). Identity in Focus: the Use of Focus Groups to Study the Construction of Collective Identity.
Sociology, 40(1), 89-105.
O'Connell, C. (2003). The Development of Recording Achievement in Higher Education: Models, Methods and
Issues in Evaluation. In D. Gosling (Ed.), Personal Development Planning (Vol. 115, pp. 15-28).
Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.
Pitts, S. (2005). Testing, Testing.... How do Students Use Written Feedback? Active Learning In Higher
Education, 6 (3), 11 218-229.
Salomen, G. & Perkins, D. (1998). Individual and Social Aspects of Learning. Review of Research into Higher
Education, 23 (1), 1-24.
Schwartz, B. (2005). The Paradox of Choice, TEDTalks. Retrieved December 12, 2009 from
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html.
Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 28 (2), 345-352.
The Higher Education Academy. (2010). National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS). Retrieved March 3,
2010 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/supportingindividuals/ntfs.
Universities UK (2007). Beyond the Degree Classification: Burgess Group Final Report. Retrieved (March 10,
2010)from: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/Burgess_final.pdf
Young, Z. E. (2000). Undergraduate choice and decision-making: why students choose Manchester. Sociology.
Manchester, University of Manchester. Masters.
15
Appendix 1: Student Focus Group Questions
These questions were approved by the University of Manchester Research Ethics Committee.
Opening Questions:
●
Give us your name, where in Manchester you live, and one place where you enjoy
going out for a meal.
Focus Questions:
When you hear the words “informed choice”, what comes to mind?
○ What makes you say that?
○ Do you feel you are able to make informed choices?
● Tell the story of the last curricula choice you made.
○ Do you make choices outside your curriculum that still affect it?
○ What sorts of extra-curricular choices do you make?
● What resources do you use to make curricula choices?
● What resources you need to make an informed curricula choice?
●
Describe what you think of when you hear the words “feedback”.
Do you ever use feedback from a prior event to make a choice?
○ What sort of choice was it?
○ How did you use the feedback?
○ Did you feel supported in your use of feedback?
● What would make feedback a more useful tool for choice?
●
●
●
●
●
Where do you see yourself a year/two years after leaving university?
Do you make curricula choices based on career goals?
Do you feel your experiences are typical of someone in your degree programme?
Closing:
●
●
●
What resources do you wish were provided for you?
Which of these is the most important?
Is there anything we missed?
15