Experimenting with student-led seminars

Abstract

This article examines student-led seminars as one way of operationalizing discourses of active learning. The format of the seminars is described in detail, including an example of the kind of discussion organized by students. Evaluation follows, touching on learning outcomes, assessment, personal reflections and comments from students across two cohorts. Two key issues are highlighted as the importance of the learning space (or ‘built pedagogy’) and the challenge of getting students to recognize student-led seminars as a learning opportunity.

Keywords:

• student discussion groups
• active learning
• co-production

Introduction

As universities in England absorb the implications of a new fee structure, aside from legitimate concerns that higher tuition will encourage ever-more 'clientelistic' students, there is a seemingly genuine push across the sector to re-engage with learning and teaching and to 'raise our game' with regard to our practices. In many universities this has included a push towards active, student-centred learning (Scheyvens et al. 2008) as a way of dealing with the changing nature of higher education. This article assesses the value of student-led discussion groups as one way of operationalizing discourses of active learning, starting with its theoretical grounding in ‘co-production’ (McCulloch 2009, Neary & Winn 2009). The bulk of the article engages in a critical discussion of the intervention, including student feedback, before a brief conclusion that argues for the place of student-led discussion groups within a range of teaching styles.

The current discourse in higher education is that students are becoming increasingly clientelistic — the ‘student as consumer’ metaphor (Molesworth et al. 2011). This is arguably a self-fulfilling prophecy; if we treat students as clients they will behave as such. By seeing students as consumers, McCulloch 2009: p173 in Taylor and Wilding 2009) argues “the student’s role in the production of learning is de-emphasised and thus learning itself may be diminished […] students who have internalised the metaphor tend to act in a passive manner.” The challenge therefore is to change the focus of our teaching to meaningfully position the ‘student as co-producer’ (Neary & Winn 2009), and to work towards a model where students are actively engaged in their own learning.

Working with student-led discussion groups

Geographies of Childhood and Youth is a third year undergraduate Geography module with an annual enrolment of approximately 35 students. Assessment includes a portfolio of critical writing and a final essay. Each two hour session begins with a lecture, running for approximately one hour. The second half of the session is led by students, who organize activities/discussion based on assigned readings. Students initially worked in seminars in large groups, but this year students worked in small groups of 4 and were in charge of a 30 minute slot. There is a distinct range of motivation across the cohort - there is usually a group of students who are enthusiastic about the module content, as well as a group of strategic students who perceive it to be ‘not as hard’ as other third year module options.

I began teaching on the module in 2011. The module had been well reviewed by students in the past; yet although the module was badged as a seminar, it relied heavily on long lectures and tutor-led discussions. While this has the benefit of guaranteeing a specified amount of material is covered, I felt that more could be asked of level three students. I wanted to engage those who initially chose the module as an ‘easier’ option, and also extend the learning of the high achievers. Essentially, students would get out of the module what they put into it, with tutor guidance and support.

In previous years the module included three seminars. My redesign, however, focused on the creation of weekly student-led groups. Students designed and ran an activity for their classmates in the second half of each session. In the first session I modelled a potential discussion format, where students addressed different sections of a theoretical reading in breakout groups, and then reported back to the entire group. Students then signed up for a session that interested them/fitted their schedule.

The more independent seminar format links to all the module’s learning outcomes, but most directly: “This structure is intended to give students an opportunity to reflect in greater depth on particular course readings and themes, and practice presentation skills in a supportive environment”. Besides employability skills, including effective communication and team work, the formal learning group (Davis 1993) of the seminar leaders, and the informal learning groups often created through the activities within each session, offer students an opportunity for deep learning. I encourage creative learning formats, and different groups have used debate, visual methods, video and case studies as the basis of their activities. I also emphasise effective leadership and encourage seminar leaders to be student/peer-centred in their approach. This method is a loose interpretation of the Peer-Led Team Learning approach (Gosser et al. 2000) popular in STEM disciplines in the United States, where students teaching other students in small groups has improved student performance and motivation.

An example of a discussion activity designed by students, and two of the responses, are shown in Figures 1 and 2. In this example, students were considering particular research challenges involved in working with children, using a reading by Punch (2002).

Figure 1 Slides from a student-led seminar.

Figure 2 Posters created by students during a student-led seminar.

The student-led discussion groups are not assessed summatively. Instead, I provide feedback to each group at the end of the session. Group work often receives negative feedback from students, especially higher level undergraduates (Taylor 2011). Choosing not to assess the student-led seminars means that I can more easily promote an environment where students are responsible to each other to provide an interesting, stimulating discussion. Moreover, they are freer to experiment and trial ideas without the pressure of formal assessment.

Key issues: learning spaces and recognizing a learning opportunity

From my point of view the seminars have been a success, as they afford students control of the learning space in a way they have not experienced before. The seminars also support the learning outcomes of the module, especially students’ grasp of theory, as they provide a time and space for students to “clarify their thinking through discussion, to test their ideas against other students and appreciate new perspectives” (Johnson et al. 1998). I gathered student reviews in a specific survey on the student-led seminar in the first cohort (2011 - see excerpts below), and followed this up with an end of year review for the following year (2012). For the groups leading the seminar each week, many expressed that leading the class was daunting at first, and then really enjoyable. However, two specific challenges emerged - learning spaces and recognizing a learning opportunity - highlighting that there is often a gap between the theory and practice of collaborative learning (Sharan 2010).

Learning spaces

The first year I taught the module it was scheduled in a traditional lecture theatre with fixed rows for students, tiered down toward a lectern. In this room the student-led seminars were an explicit challenge to what Oblinger (2006) calls, “the power of built pedagogy (the ability of space to define how one teaches)”. Encouraging students to run seminars for their peers was made more challenging by a room that highlighted the power of the person behind the lectern, a position students were often uncomfortable occupying. The room was also challenging for practical reasons, as working in small groups was constrained by row seating that only faced forward. Over time, students were encouraged to take control of the space - sitting on desks, working ‘backwards’ to the front of the room, speaking from the side of the room rather than the front. As Fielding (2000) notes, appropriating the space of the classroom can have significant consequences for learning. This was a relatively easy challenge to overcome, as in subsequent years I specifically requested a more modular classroom, where students could reorganize the chairs and desks to suit their activities. This flexibility in the design and use of space helps to support a sense of community rather than the typical hierarchical teacher-learner relationship of most university teaching spaces (Bickford & Wright 2006).

Recognizing a learning opportunity

A much more fundamental challenge to the student-led seminars was the expectation students had about what kinds of activities count as ‘learning’. This was not an issue for everyone and several students reported that the discussion groups allowed them to clarify their ideas or be challenged by their peers, while others liked the diverse formats of the sessions:

“I think the discussions are an effective way of getting people involved in discussing the topics, they encourage people to have an opinion and make an argument rather than just repeating what an author has said”.

“I like the way we learn the background to a topic and the research academics have done on the topic and then discuss it ourselves. I think the discussion creates a nice contrast and keeps the lecture varied in style.”

“By constantly changing the type of session it allows different people to have their say: e.g. today we did a drawing exercise which I really enjoyed. It's also less intimidating for people to not have to go to the front.”

Many students, however, reported that they did not feel like they were learning anything, often citing the informality of the sessions, or that some repeated similar ideas to the lecture:

“I think it very much depends on what type of learner you are. For me I much rather prefer the lectures as it feels we are getting more direction in our learning. However, I do like the fact we have to do the readings each week. It is all too easy to fall behind by a couple of weeks if there is no discussion/ expectation to discuss the readings in the lectures and discussion groups.”

“I think this is beneficial because you get to try new things and ways of learning. However, if you have already done the reading (which you should have) I don't feel that I am learning anything new and am just spending an hour going over things.”

“Although I appreciate it is not much to do for each week, as it is not assessed I sometimes feel the groups have just done something as quick and simple as possible to produce a discussion. Over my three years doing geography, we have always lacked seminars but on the rare occasion we have had them I have learned huge amounts.....much more than I feel I ever do from our peer discussion groups.”

I initially found these reactions surprising, as the student-led seminars to me were quite rigorous and well-prepared - often students were asking more of their peers than I would have. According to an HEA review (Ertl et al. 2008), although students ‘learning from and with peers’ has ‘objective’ gains in learning, students are more likely to report ‘affective’ rather than ‘cognitive’ benefits. Therefore the challenge is more about recognizing the student-led seminars as a learning opportunity. The discussions are very different to the more formal lecture style that students typically identify with learning at university, and it can be difficult for students to recognize learning in other formats, and to value it regardless of assessment (Healey et al. 1996). In thinking about how to address this challenge in future, I asked students how to improve the student-led seminars. Their responses included:

“I would like smaller groups, with you as a mediator (so we actually stick to the subject) where everybody express his or her views on the texts. Maybe participation should be marked therefore people would make more [of an] effort (sad but true!)”

“I like the fact that it is not only a lecture, and that we are encouraged to participate. But, I think we are a big group to do so, and I would have preferred an actual seminar where everybody read at home and then discussed in class. The way it is right now, we do not really go in-depth into what we read. Maybe having the class subdivided for the seminars, different time or place, would increase the level of our learning. Still, I like your effort for a more dynamic way of learning, I only wish we could discuss more as a class.”

The year subsequent to these comments (2012), and in this year’s version of the module, the groups leading the seminar are smaller (a maximum of four people), and I have written guidance notes for seminar leaders about facilitating participation from their peers and developing their potential to engage critically with material (I also provide links to several online resources including Jaques (2011)). The most effective change has been to use the final minutes of the seminar to highlight the contribution of the seminar leaders, specifically commending their efforts, and making some links between the student-led seminar and my lecture to highlight the benefits of the session. In end of module feedback last year, several students wrote about the student-led seminars as one of the best features of the module, while only one commented that they felt ‘unsure’ about them. In future, I aim to build on this success by continuing to work on developing good rapport with each new group of students. I believe this is key to the success of any module, and to student success. If I am enthusiastic and supportive then students are more likely to get on board. Jones & Jones (1996) contend that reassurance and support from lecturers is more important than learning format (either traditional or self-directed), and it is this aspect of the art of teaching that I will focus on in future.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Thanks also to Dr David Bell, School of Geography, University of Leeds for his support of this research.