Student led tutorials using the 'supertut' process

Dr Jocelyn Davies
Applied and Molecular Ecology

"Of course I wanted the students to contribute to informed debate, but I also wanted them to argue freely about controversial issues without feeling threatened . . ."

Description

In the 3rd year subject Indigenous Australians and Environmental Management students encounter a host of 'wicked problems' - problems where there is no 'right answer' because the formulation of the 'problem' and of responses to it vary according to people's social, cultural and political experiences and attitudes.

Tutorials can be an important way of exploring different ideas and opinions about such issues provided a supportive learning environment and a high level of informed participation can be achieved. However, this promise is more often than not left unrealised, so I decided to work with student-led tutorials and 'supertutes' - (pre-tutorial workshops attended by the tutorial leaders for that particular topic) as a way of encouraging students to prepare for tutorials and participate in discussions.

The weekly tutorials which resulted were lively and interesting debates with high levels of participation from all tutorial group members. Most of the student tutorial leaders also displayed a high standard of expertise in their chosen topic.

Aims

• to encourage independent learning
• to provide a non-threatening atmosphere where discussions can be frank and open
• to promote skills and confidence relevant to facilitating meetings and workshops
• to develop skills in formulating arguments and justifying a position
• to engage all students in tutorial discussions

Process

Students leading a tutorial worked in pairs to design a tutorial and this formed part of their assessment. Their task was to facilitate informed and balanced discussions. This placed responsibility on them for their own learning, and for creating a learning environment for their fellow students. By week 3 of the semester, each self-selected pair of students was required to choose a topic from a list of 5 tutorial themes which spanned most of the content of the subject. Lectures on each theme, which were scheduled for the week prior to the tutorial, and a booklet of readings, provided background for students and raised points for discussion.

Teaching early in the semester included some skills development - by Margaret Cargill of the (former) Advisory Centre for University Education - on formulating arguable propositions and developing an argument. A brief outline of some facilitation techniques was also presented.

As a group the class discussed features of a good tutorial as a basis for establishing assessment criteria for the student led tutorials. Good tutorials were seen as having well informed leaders, interesting ideas and presentations and lively discussions with everyone participating. In addition, 'loud-mouthed' or highly opinionated people were not allowed to dominate.

Supertutes

I drew on Richard Baker's experience at Australian National University in designing the student-led tutorial process. From his experience of sitting through six tutorials each week on the same topic, Richard developed the idea of supertutes (he spells it 'supertuts'). (see his site for an excellent account of the supertut process and the results of evaluations through questionnaires and a focus group.)

Leaders, having prepared for their task, met with me for two hours, one week prior to leading their tutorial. These supertuts involved six students (a pair of tutorial leaders from each of the three tutorial groups). These students and I aired their ideas about their topic, listened and commented on other students' ideas and talked about sources of further information and ways to structure the tutorial discussion. Student tutorial leaders were then required to brief their group members (by e-mail) on the exact topic for discussions and on the preparation that they should complete before the tutorial.

Tutorials

Students used a variety of facilitation techniques. Most tutorials were structured into several parts - an introduction to the topic from the leaders; an ice-breaker discussion question; a more involved debate; and a summing up by the leaders. Scenarios based on role playing provided some of the most animated discussions. In several other tutorials, student leaders divided the group into two parts and asked each sub-group to develop an argument either in support or against a provocatively framed question. Some leaders swapped the allegiance of the two sub-groups half way through the tutorial, helping to challenge and critique strongly held views. A few tutorials were more technical explorations of the information presented in readings. As well as informed and sometimes intense discussion, a lot of fun was had by all in most of the tutorials, and the trepidation with which some leaders approached their task initially was usually quickly dispelled once the process got underway.

Assessment

Leaders were assessed on their collective performance by all members of their group and by me through completing a 'pink sheet'. Marking criteria included the extent of preparation; clarity of instructions given to other group members about preparation; clarity of explanation of issues; choice of methods to stimulate discussion; encouragement of discussion; balancing of input by members of the group; maintaining a rapport with the group; time management and use of visual and other aids. The two leaders of each tutorial were also asked to assess the extent of their respective contributions to preparing and facilitating the tutorial. They could ask to have their individual marks varied if their contributions were unequal and this happened in a few cases.

Tutorial facilitation contributed 10% to subject assessment. Students also had to write a tutorial paper on the same or a similar topic, due two weeks after the tutorial they led (and was worth a further 25% of the subject's assessment).