OLCPFinal

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning
Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford
Keith Trigwell Paul Ashwin
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford Contents Page

3 11 13 13 15 16 16 17 18 22 22 23 25 26 30 30 30 36 42 42 44 44 45 46 47 49 50 51 52 53 55 55 56 59 64 64 67 68 70
1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Similar, relevant research on Oxford student learning and on related contexts . . . . . . . 3.1 Key aspects of the tutorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Students experiences of studying at Oxford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Assessment and examinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Indicators of academic performance at Cambridge University . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Qualitative differences in experience of tutorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Qualitative differences in students experience of collegiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Allegiance to college and colleagues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Contact with others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The model of learning used to inform the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Elements of the model: variables as scales and items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Validity of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Students response to scales and items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Results from questionnaire scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Results on individual items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. The relations between elements of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Relations between students perceptions of the learning environment and their approaches to learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Relations between students conceptions of learning, their learning motivation and their approaches to learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Relations between students approaches to learning and their outcomes of learning and course satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Relations between student characteristics and students perceptions of their learning environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Relations between student characteristics and their motivation and conceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Relations between course context and students perceptions of their learning environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Relations between course context and students motivation and conceptions 8.8 Relations between students perceptions of the environment and their outcomes of learning and satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 Relations between students motivation and conceptions and their outcomes of learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.10 Relations between student characteristics and their outcomes of learning . . . 8.11 Relations between course context and students outcomes of learning . . . . . 9. Differences between colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Acknowledgements and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annexes I Frequencies and means of questionnaire item responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II Scale means and distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV Model validity Cluster analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . V Scale and group items and reliabilities (Cronbach alpha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI Study Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.0 Summary
The Oxford Learning Context Project was a three-year project that aimed to explore Oxford undergraduate students perceptions of their learning environment in order to find ways of improving their learning. Undergraduate students from 17 colleges of the University of Oxford were sent questionnaires, and responses were received from 2330 students: A response rate of 42% [Annexe III]. In examining how the perceptions of high achieving students (those who achieved First Class Honours) differ from those of other students, the project made use of two key resources: The report of the 1997 Commission of Inquiry [Section 2.0] and a model of student learning [Section 6.0]. The model of student learning used to inform the study contains key factors that have been shown in other contexts to be related to qualitatively different outcomes of learning [Figure 1.1 and Section 6.0]. When students enter a particular learning context, they do so with particular personal characteristics and with a range of previous experience (Student characteristics) and they engage with a course at Oxford that is supported through the department and college structure (Course context). Both of these presage elements are related to product or the Outcomes of learning, and have been the focus of several earlier studies at Oxford (such as studies of relations between entry/admission characteristics and outcomes of learning (McCrum 1996)). The focus for this study was on the central path through the model, with a concentration on the process elements students learning motivation, their conceptions of what learning at Oxford is about, their self-esteem, their experience of their learning environment (workload, teaching, assessment, collegiality and the clarity of the course goals), and the qualitatively different approaches they take to their studies [Section 6.1].
Student characteristics Motivation & Conceptions Approach to learning Outcomes of learning
Perceptions of environment Course context
Figure 1.1 Adapted 3P (presage-process-product) model of student learning
Many of the conclusions from this study, described below and in Sections 7-9, are consistent with those in previous reports (e.g. 1997 Commission of Inquiry Report, the 2003 Oxford Student Course Experience Questionnaire Report). This study also examined some previously unreported areas of undergraduate education at Oxford, for example: * The relations between the proportion of tutorials students have with graduate students and their perceptions of their learning environment; * The relations between the proportion of tutorials students have outside of their college and their perceptions of their learning environment; * Variation in students experience in different years of study; * How students motivation is related to their approaches to learning; and * How students conceptions of learning vary in relation to their learning outcomes. The outcomes are summarised as responses to five key questions: 1. Is the University meeting its aim to provide a learning environment in which intellectual and personal development is fostered within a stimulating multidisciplinary academic community? Oxford University students found their courses interesting and intellectually stimulating. The majority were satisfied with the quality of their degree course and the contribution of their college to that course [Section 7.2]. The students report high levels of self-efficacy and motivation [Section 7.1]. Students with higher levels of motivation were more likely to report having a higher quality learning outcome (first bar chart). Around 10% of students disagreed with statements suggesting that they approach their learning with a focus on understanding the meaning of their subjects. Scores on this deep approach scale are high [Annexe II], and the students who reported the highest scores were more likely to have a higher quality learning outcome (second bar chart).
Degree Class by Motivation Scale
Class I Class II Div 1 Class II Div 2 Class III/Pass 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Degree Class by Deep Approach Scale

Class I Class II Div 1 Class II Div 2 Class III/Pass 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4
Mean of Motivation (Scale 1-5)
Mean of DA (Scale 1-5)
In line with the conclusions of Moore (1963), and Sell and Robson (1998) we found that the majority of students felt that they gained a lot from their time at Oxford. For example, 72% agreed that they benefit from being in contact with active researchers/scholars, and 68% agree that their course stimulates enthusiasm for further learning [Annexe I]. Sell and Robson (1998) concluded that a small minority of the students involved in their study at a single Oxford college were vulnerable and unhappy [Section 3]. In their written responses to this survey, a similar small minority of students in all colleges indicated that they felt alienated from Oxford. All students were asked whether they wished they had been selected to study at another university, and 6% of students agreed [Annexe I]. 2. What can be learnt from the perceptions of high-achieving students? Results in Final Honour Schools were available for 428 of the 2330 students in the sample population. Of these, 90 achieved First Class Honours. These students, on average, described a pattern of responses to items on the variables in this study that were significantly different to those described by students who achieved results below Second Class Honours Division 1. Students who achieved First Class Honours had a mean deep approach score of 3.81 (on a 1-5 scale) compared with 3.21 for Pass/Third Class Honours and 3.41 for Second Class Honours Division 2. In adopting a deep approach, students intend to understand what it is they are learning. Similar, but opposite, relations were found for surface approaches to learning and Final Honour Schools outcomes [Section 8.3]. In adopting a surface approach, students are focused on reproducing course material for assessment purposes rather then seeking to understand the meaning of what they are learning. Students who achieved First Class Honours had higher scores on all the elements used to describe the learning environment, and on the good teaching, appropriate workload, and clear goals and standards indicators in particular [Section 8.8]. They were more likely to say they were more motivated, more confident of their own ability, and more likely to conceive of learning in ways consistent with the learning objectives of the University [Section 8.9]. These same patterns were also found, in the whole sample, for those students who anticipated that they will receive First Class Honours or an upper Second Class Honours Division 1. While the students entering Oxford would appear, on the basis of A-level results, to be a homogenous group, there is variation in their prior experiences that accounts for some of the differences in their learning outcomes. There is little the University can do about this. However, this study shows that there is also variation in the ways that this relatively homogeneous group of undergraduates perceive their learning environment, which is also related to their learning outcomes. This suggests that changing the perceptions of the learning environment of the lower achieving students may help to improve the quality of their learning. For example, the higher achieving students experience aspects of their
teaching as being more supportive (first bar chart below), which may suggest that addressing issues such as giving helpful feedback, and understanding student difficulties, may help to improve the learning of lower achieving students. Similar sets of relations are found for students conception of learning, with conceptions of learning of the higher achieving students being more aligned with those espoused by the University (second bar chart). This suggests that lower achieving students may benefit from discussions about what conceptions of learning are appropriate for studying at Oxford.
Degree Class by Good Teaching Scale
Class I Class II Div 1 Class II Div 2 Class III/Pass 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Degree Class by Conception of Learning

Class I Class II Div 1 Class II Div 2 Class III/Pass 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5
Mean of GTS (Scale 1-5)
Mean of Learning Conception (Scale 1-5)
3. How do students describe the tutorial system? The majority of students think about the purpose of tutorials in ways that are aligned with the Universitys view of the purpose of tutorials. In addition, it was found that undergraduate students who had a high proportion of tutorials with graduate students were more likely to perceive their learning environment as less supportive. This study also confirmed much of what is already known about the tutorial system. In line with other studies it was found that the majority of students value the tutorial system and feel it supports their learning. Where students do not value tutorials it was found that they were more likely to think about the purpose of tutorials in a way that was not aligned with the Universitys view. In its Self Evaluation Document (University of Oxford 2003, paragraph 120), the University states the purpose of the tutorial as it should essentially develop an individual students capacity to think in depth about a subject area, and to operate with growing confidence within its techniques and methodologies. The qualitative component of this study explored the qualitative variation in students conceptions of the tutorial, and found four qualitatively different ways in which students saw the tutorial. These were: A: Tutorials as the tutor explaining to the student what the student does not understand; B: Tutorials as the tutor showing the student how to see the subject in the way that the tutor does; C: Tutorials as the tutor bringing things into relation to each other to help the student develop a new perspective in the wider context of the discipline; and D: Tutorials as the tutor and the student exchanging different points of view on the topic and both coming to a new understanding [Section 4].
The conception of learning scale developed for use in the quantitative part of this study, contains items about how students saw the purpose of tutorials (items 16 and 45 on the questionnaire) that were drawn from this study. The questionnaire responses indicated that over 60% of students saw the purpose of tutorials in ways that are consistent with the Universitys stated view of the purpose of tutorials [Annexe I]. In general students value their tutorials highly and feel that they learn from them. They are also very clear that they do not want to move away from tutorials towards a system based more on classes. Only 7% of students agreed that they would welcome a move from a tutorial-driven system of teaching towards one with an increased emphasis on classes [Section 7.2]. These students, as well as the 2% of students who felt the tutorial system had inhibited their learning, were found, in correlations with the Conceptions of learning scale, to be more likely to be working with a conception of learning as gathering information and having it tested rather than as developing personal understanding [Section 7.2]. These findings suggest that some of the students who do not value the tutorial system may not be aware of its purpose. There was far less of a consensus amongst students views of classes, with 47% of students agreeing that classes had enhanced their learning, 29% disagreeing and 25% of students responding as neutral [Section 7.2]. Two possible factors have been identified for this spread of views about classes. One is that students have mixed experiences of the quality of classes, and this may reflect some tutors lack of experience of teaching classes. Another is that many students may have felt that an endorsement of classes within the survey may have offered an argument against the tutorial system. Students who had over 50% of their tutorials with graduate students when compared to students who had no tutorials with graduate students, perceived that their teaching was less good, that the goals of their courses were less clear, that their workload and the way they were assessed were less appropriate, experienced less collegiality and perceived that they had less encouragement to develop their own academic interests [Section 8.6]. They also had lower scores on the Conceptions of learning scale, were less motivated, and had lower levels of self-efficacy [Section 8.7]. They felt that they had less support in improving skills in both oral and written communication and they reported not feeling as confident about tackling unfamiliar problems [Section 8.11]. Three possible reasons for these differences have been identified: that graduate students have insufficient support in learning how to conduct tutorials; that graduate students subject knowledge is not as sophisticated as college fellows; or that having a high proportion of tutorials with graduate students is an indicator that students have tutorials with many different tutors and that this lack of a stable relationship with a particular tutor(s) results in them feeling less supported in their learning. The third of these possible reasons is supported by results showing that students who have a high proportion of their tutorials outside of their college perceive their learning environment as being less supportive [Section 8.6]. We note here that even though there are perceived differences between the teaching of graduate students and of fellows, both are perceived to be at a high level of quality [Section 8.7].
There are a number of conclusions from these findings on the tutorial system. One is that the tutorial system appears to be highly effective in supporting students learning. A second is that helping students to understand the purpose of the tutorial system and supporting them in experiencing the type of learning that the tutorial is aimed at may lead students to learn more from tutorials (given the relations between students conceptions of learning and their outcomes shown in Section 8.9) and value them even more highly. A third is that the variation in students experience of classes would be worth investigating further to examine whether it reflects the quality of classes that students are experiencing or whether it indicates that, however high the quality of classes, a large proportion of students will always prefer tutorials. A fourth is that students experience of tutorials with graduate students could be investigated further to examine the reasons for a high proportion of tutorials with graduate students being related to perceptions of a supportive, but less supportive learning environment than students who have a low proportion of tutorials with graduate students. 4. What does this study contribute to questions on teaching norms and subject families? The Education and Policy Standards Committee (2003) paper to Council on Learning and Teaching in the Collegiate University: Teaching Norms and Subject Families noted, that The evidence suggests that there is a problem, in some areas at least, of inappropriately high workloads and a lack of clarity in course aims which may be damaging the quality of learning.. The report associates high workloads with the combined effects of tutorial demands and growth in other kinds of provision. It notes the high value attached by staff and students alike, to the principle of tutorial teaching. However it argues that the steady increase in the quantity of tutorials may have been at the expense of their best qualities and it questions the appropriateness of the tutorial for all of the tasks to which it is now put. [Section 7.2]. We have found in this study that a large proportion of students say they experience an inappropriate workload [Section 7.1]. These same students are also more likely to describe using less successful (surface) approaches to learning and have lower quality degree results [Section 8.1]. Oxford students report spending on average, 34 hours per week on academic study, with a standard deviation of 12 hours per week, but there is no correlation between this range and perceived workload [Section 8.4]. Around 20% of students do not agree that the teaching they experience is good [Section 7.1] and this is related to their response that they view learning at Oxford in ways that are not consistent with those advocated by the University (that is, they see learning as, for example, the accumulation of facts rather than the development of meaning or personal understanding). If teaching norms are to include less tutorials to help achieve appropriate workloads, the teaching approaches adopted should be aligned with the learning goals of the University, and these made more explicit to students.
Students who are more likely to be seeking personal meaning and understanding from their studies (adopting more of a deep approach) report higher intellectual stimulation and motivation, are more confident of their own ability to achieve their academic goals, and have a conception of learning that is more aligned with that promoted by the University. The students who describe adopting approaches focused more on meeting the assessment requirements through memorising rather than understanding (more of a surface approach) report lower levels of intellectual stimulation, are less confident, have a conception of learning that is less aligned with that promoted by the university, experience lower levels of good teaching, less clear goals, less appropriate workloads and assessment, lower levels of collegiality, lower co-ordination between college and department in their course, and less encouragement from their college to pursue their own academic interests [Sections 8.2 and 8.3]. These results suggest that higher quality student learning may result from attempts to increase students perceptions of all these environmental indicators. 5. What differences were found in the experiences and learning outcomes of male and female students? In line with earlier studies (for example, Mellanby et al. 2000), this study also found a gender- gap between the Final Honour Schools performance of male and female students and also in the support students felt they had been given in developing the key skills of problem solving and written communication [Section 8.10]. However, there were no differences in the ways that male and female students perceived their learning environment [Section 8.4], or in their levels of motivation or their conceptions of learning [Section 8.5]. There was a difference between the self-efficacy of male and female students, with male students feeling more confident in their abilities to perform well on their degree courses [Section 8.5]. This difference could be related to a number of factors. There may be an element of a self-fulfilling prophecy here, such that male students beliefs that they will do better leads to them performing better than female students. It might be that male students confidence is reflected in the way they write in Final Honour School and this is something that is rewarded by examiners, as found at Cambridge [Section 3.5] or it may be related to other factors in the environment that were not examined within this survey. The conclusion from these findings is that the valuable work that is already taking place within the University to investigate the gender gap in Final Honour Schools should continue in order to shed further light on factors that might explain the difference in performance of male and female students. Other observations First year students, compared to third year students, felt more encouraged to develop their own academic interests and perceived more coherence between their college and
department [Section 8.4]. The only other significant difference found in students experience in different years of study was in the development of key skills. As expected, students in later years were more likely to say they had developed skills, in this case, in three areas an increase in the development of problem solving skills, a sharpening of analytical skills, feeling more confident about tackling unfamiliar problems than students in earlier years [Section 8.10]. A combination of the students previous experience and the learning environment that their college offers them is seen to lie behind the differences between colleges in the rank ordering presented in the Norrington Table (A rank order of colleges by Final Honour Schools result). This is effectively a combination of the two sets of relations described in the paths at the top and bottom of our study model. The paths through the centre of the model constitute an additional way of rank ordering colleges. By focusing more on motivation, conceptions, perceptions and approaches, it is a ranking based less on student characteristics and more on the value-added by each college [Section 9.0]. Differences in students perceptions of their learning environment that are related to variation in their previous schooling were not observed. We conclude from this study that changes made with the aim of improving student learning are possible, and are more likely to be successful using a more holistic, overall approach. The consistency of the directions and magnitudes of the relations found between the variables used to model the Oxford student learning environment suggests the effectiveness of this approach. We found that higher quality learning outcomes are associated with a range of perceptions and motivations that are, in turn, associated with ways of thinking about learning. No one small change to perceptions of workload or of teaching are likely to have a substantial effect, but an overall approach underpinned by an awareness of conceptions of learning of Oxfords teachers and students, may enable the learning of all students to be improved [Section 10.0]. Reports on the initial findings from the data for each college were distributed to the participating college in Trinity Term 2003. Further information on and from this study, is available from the Institute for the Advancement of University Learning (harriet.dunbargoddet@learning.ox.ac.uk). However, information on or about a specific college will only be released to members of that college.
Dr Keith Trigwell and Dr Paul Ashwin Institute for the Advancement of University Learning November 2003
10
2.0 Introduction
This study aimed to explore aspects of the students learning environment in an attempt to find ways to improve the quality of the outcomes of student learning at the University of Oxford. In its design it was influenced by three factors: the aims of the University in relation to the teaching and learning of undergraduate students, the findings of the Universitys 1997 Commission of Inquiry, and research studies into undergraduate learning from both inside and outside the University. One of the aims of the University, according to its Corporate Plan, is to provide a learning environment in which intellectual and personal development is fostered within a stimulating multi-disciplinary academic community (University of Oxford 2001, paragraph 38). This study sought to examine the extent to which the University is succeeding in this aim in relation to undergraduate students. In 1997, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry chaired by the Principal of Jesus and former Vice-Chancellor, Sir Peter North, was published. That inquiry addressed, and made recommendations on, three main topics: the structure of the administration of the University, the way finances are organised and distributed, and teaching and learning at Oxford. The last of these topics, in particular the Commission of Inquirys investigation of the teaching and learning of undergraduate students, is relevant to the present study and was used as a starting point in the design of the study. The approach taken to investigating the teaching and learning of undergraduate students within the Commission of Inquiry was largely quantitative in two ways. First, it used quantitative methods (questionnaires) to gather responses from undergraduate students. Second, it focused largely on quantifying the undergraduate experience of teaching and learning. For example, it examined the number of tutorials, classes and lectures that students had in a fortnight, the number of students in tutorials and classes, and the number of hours students spent studying. It also analysed these responses in relation to college size and wealth. However, in addition to this quantitative analysis, the survey of undergraduate students presented students with the opportunity to make written comments on undergraduate life in Oxford. The results of an analysis of the issues covered by students in their written comments were listed in Paper 11 of the Commission of Inquiry, Supplementary Volume (1997b). The issues listed most frequently by students were: a) Pressure of academic work; b) Methods and quality of teaching; c) Course content and organisation; d) Lack of guidance from tutors; e) The examination system; f) Libraries; g) The collegiate system; h) Staff/student relationships and pastoral care; and
11
i) Financial pressures. Paper 11 describes more fully the substance of each of these sets of comments, but no further analysis was conducted. The Commission of Inquiry Report noted (p.483) that despite these (mostly negative) written comments, few students were dissatisfied with their overall experience at Oxford. The current study sought to use the issues associated with students learning, which were identified by the Commission of Inquiry, as one starting point for a quantitative investigation of students experience of the undergraduate learning environment at Oxford. A key part of this study was to investigate the relations between students experience of the learning environment and the quality of their approaches to learning for all of the students surveyed, and the outcomes of learning for respondents in their final year of study. The focus of the study was on aspects of the learning environment that students might perceive as constituting a help or a hindrance to their learning and how these perceptions vary in different contexts. The ways in which students perceive certain factors to be a help or a hindrance to their learning may help in the development of approaches for improving students learning. In adopting this focus, the report complements the Commission of Inquiry, and the other studies that explore the more quantitative aspects of students experience, such as studies of relations between entry/admission characteristics and outcomes of learning (for example, McCrum 1996). The design of the questionnaire was also informed by three sets of research studies into undergraduate learning from both inside and outside of the University. The first set of studies includes the qualitative research done on Oxford University, including analyses of the tutorial system (Moore 1968, Ashwin 2002), and aspects of collegiality and conceptions of learning at Oxford (Trigwell & Ashwin 2002). This research and its implications for this study are described in more detail in Sections 3 - 5. The second set of studies, from outside the University, is research that suggests that when students experience workloads that are too high and an assessment system that encourages recall rather than understanding, they are more likely to adopt a lower quality, reproducing approach to learning (surface approaches). And students who experience good teaching, and clear goals and standards are more likely to adopt approaches aimed at developing meaning and understanding (deep approaches) (Ramsden 2003, Lizzio et al. 2002, Prosser & Trigwell 1999). Relations between how students perceive their learning environment, and the quality of their learning approach and outcome, have been shown to be useful in improving learning in other higher education contexts. The third set of studies, also from outside the University, focus on students self reports of their motivation for learning, and how intellectual stimulation and self-efficacy are related to the quality of their outcomes of learning (Pintrich et al. 1989). Self-efficacy and motivation items were included with the intention of measuring relations between them and learning approaches and outcomes. These relations might also be used to improve student learning.
12
3.0 Similar, relevant research on Oxford student learning and on related contexts
Previous studies on the Oxford system and accounts of related undergraduate learning environments research is reviewed in this section. It is based on reports internal to Oxford as well as published material. The review is split into four sections on Oxford. The first examines studies and accounts of learning and teaching; the second, students experiences of studying; the third, assessment and examinations; and the fourth, admissions. This review was used to inform the development of the study described in this report, and it describes what was formally known when this study began. A fifth section reviews a relevant study published recently in Cambridge. Studies and accounts of learning and teaching at the University of Oxford have tended to focus on the tutorial system. This is partly because the particular form of the tutorial system is unique to Oxford and also because other aspects of the learning environment such as lectures, classes, labs, private study, and essay writing have been seen by students, tutors, and commentators to feed into the tutorial (Moore 1968, Kiosses 1997, Commission of Inquiry 1997a, Tapper & Palfreyman 2000, Shale 2000). For example, it has been argued that lectures serve to stimulate students in preparing for the tutorial (Rouverol 1955, Kiosses 1997), whilst Shale (2000) states that the purpose of essays is for the students to develop an argument that is supported by the appropriate evidence, which can then be used as the basis of the discussion in tutorials1. The Commission of Inquiry (1997a) makes a similar argument about problem- and work-sheets. For this reason the first section of this review, which deals with learning and teaching at Oxford, will be centred on the tutorial process. 3.1 Key Aspects of the tutorial According to most sources, the aim of the tutorial is to encourage the undergraduate to explore a particular aspect of the subject in depth (Moore 1968, Kiosses 1997, Commission of Inquiry 1997a, Board of Faculty of Physiological Sciences 1999, Shale 2000). However, there is qualitative variation in the way that students and tutors conceive of the role of tutorials in students learning (Ashwin, 2002, 2003 and Section 4.0). There is also evidence to suggest that there is some variation in the way tutorials are structured to meet these aims (see Shale 2000, Sabri 2000 and the various tutor contributions in Palfreyman 2001). The Faculty Board of English (1996) noted that this was because the tutorial process puts student and tutor face-to-face in a way that is affected by distinctive personalities and approaches. Despite the differences in approach, the Commission of
However, it should be noted that some studies have found that teachers and students perceive a lack of cohesion between lectures, classes and tutorials (Coopers and Lybrand 1996, Kiosses 1997, Commission of Inquiry 1997b, Oxford University Students Union Academic Affairs Committee 1998). For this reason, the Commission of Inquiry recommended that academic boards promote greater cohesion between these modes of learning (Commission of Inquiry 1997a, Recommendation 54c).
13
Inquiry (1997a), in summarising the findings of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), concluded that the aims of the tutorials were being met successfully. Moore (1968) emphasised three cardinal principles of the tutorial: catering for the individual, the co-operation between tutor and student and a particular view of knowledge. Catering for the Individual Moore (1968) argued that the individual nature of the tutorial allows each student to learn at their own pace, and ask any questions they may have and the tutor to adapt the process to the students learning needs and to give students immediate feedback on their performance. However, Dover (1983) reported that an Oxford University Students Union survey found that 38% of students felt that their tutors gave insufficient feedback, and students expressed the same view to the Commission of Inquiry (1997b). The Commission argued that this represented a misunderstanding of the tutorial process and recommended that undergraduates be better informed of the policies on grading and commenting on tutorial work (Commission of Inquiry 1997a, Recommendation 55). Co-operation between Tutor and Student Moore (1968) argued that the tutorial relationship should be one in which two minds worked on the same problem. It is an opportunity for intellectual growth for the student and the tutor, in which the student should gradually acquire independence from their tutor. The tutors role, according to Shale (2000) is, in part, to demonstrate the methods of the scholar to enable students to achieve their own scholarly understanding. This involves a process of the tutor rationalising between the demands of their subject and considerations of the best way for students to learn the subject (Jaworski et al. 1999, Jaworski 2000)2. The nature of this interaction seems to be predicated on an ongoing relationship between the student and a single tutor who monitors their progress and directs their studies. The Commission of Inquiry (1997b) found that 48% of tutorials were given by the students own tutor. Another essential part of the tutorial relationship is the student having some freedom of choice in what they study. Whilst tutors appear to feel that students have appropriate freedom in their studies (The Faculty Board of English 1996, Kiosses 1997) Kiosses also found that students felt the tutor decided most of the areas of study. Other studies have illustrated the factors that limit a high degree of freedom in studying within the tutorial system (Moore 1968, Dover 1983). Views of Knowledge Moore (1968) argued that, in the tutorial, knowledge is seen as contested. The undergraduate has the opportunity to put forward his or her own ideas and present a critical analysis of a particular problem or proposition (Moore 1968, Kiosses 1997,
This collaborative research resulted in the establishment of an option course on the Mathematics degree in Mathematics Education, which is taught by Mathematics Educators within the Department of Education.
14
Commission of Inquiry 1997a, Shale 2000). This led the Commission of Inquiry (1997a) to argue that tutorials should only be used to give undergraduates the opportunity to defend their arguments. They should not be used to impart information, to bring first year undergraduates up to the appropriate standards for the course, or to prepare undergraduates for examinations. It was recommended that other methods be used to do this (Recommendation 54). This view of knowledge in the tutorial does not appear to apply to all subjects and to be shared by all students. For example, Batty (1994) argued that, in mathematics, the principal function of the tutorial was to go over the problems that caused the student difficulty. Jaworski (2000) found a similar approach adopted in this same subject. Also, Kiosses (1997) found that some classics students felt that it was self-evident that there was a close relationship between tutorial essays and examination questions. Finally, Moore (1968) and Kiosses (1997) found that when students were poorly prepared, the tutor tended to go over the ground that the student should have covered in their essay. These approaches appear to suggest a less contested, and more accumulative, view of knowledge in the tutorial. 3.2 Students Experiences of Studying at Oxford The Commission of Inquiry (1997b) suggested that students in different subjects spent on average from about 20 - 44 hours a week studying. It also reported marked differences in the skills that students in the sciences felt they had gained compared to those in the arts and social sciences. For example, 70% of science students felt that they had gained team work skills compared to 40% of arts and social science students; whereas 90% of arts and social science students felt they were gaining written communication skills compared to 44% of science students. In response, the Commission of Inquiry (1997a) recommended that there should be consideration made of how teaching and assessment methods could be used to develop a broader range of skills in Oxfords students (Recommendation 56). A study of students perceptions of life in one Oxford college found that there was a high level of contentment amongst the majority of students (Sell & Robson 1998). However, a third of the respondents felt rejected on the grounds of social class and a third of women reported having experienced sexual discrimination or harassment. The self-esteem of female students was also lower than male students. Mellanby et al. (2000) also found this difference in a wider study of students at Oxford. In their study of a single college, Sell & Robson (1998) reported that 10% of students found their relationship with their tutor positively unhelpful whilst 58% of students found the relationships with their tutors helpful. Interestingly, Moore (1968) had previously argued that, in his experience, there were also 10% of students for whom the tutorial relationship did not work and about 60% of students who found the relationship beneficial. A number of students in their written comments to the Commission of Inquiry reported concern over the variability of tutorial teaching and a perceived lack of interest from some tutors (Commission of Inquiry 1997b). Sell & Robson (1998) concluded, from a
15
correlational analysis, that a small minority of students at the college were vulnerable and unhappy. 3.3 Assessment and Examinations In its survey of undergraduates the Commission of Inquiry (1997b) found that most humanities and social science students were assessed by unseen examinations at the end of their third year, although some could opt to do a thesis. There were a greater variety of assessment methods used in the sciences, with the vast majority of students undertaking a thesis. The Commission of Inquiry (1997a) recommended a number of changes to the assessment process including split finals and an increased number of nonexamination-based forms of assessment (Recommendation 53). A gap has been identified between the examination results of female and male students at Oxford (Davies & Harr 1989, McCrum 1994, 1996, 1998, Spear 1997, Mellanby et al. 2000) and at Cambridge (for example, Spurling 1990). The size of the gender gap has been found to vary between subjects (McCrum 1996). A number of theories have been put forward including a greater variance in the intelligence of males (Goodhart 1988), the style of tutorial teaching (Davies & Harr 1989), the disadvantages to females of coresidence, the academic culture of colleges, and the effects of pre-menstrual stress during examination time (McCrum 1994). Mellanby et al. (2000) found that whilst students verbal ability did predict examination outcome this was not related to gender. They found that individual differences that were related to gender were not related to outcome and concluded that gender gap was more likely to be caused by the nature of the academic assessment system. 3.4 Admissions The Vice-Chancellors Working Party on Access (1999) reported that there was a lack of applications from students from state schools and a lack of applications from females, particularly in medicine, the physical sciences, engineering and the humanities. They also found that there was a lower acceptance rate for students from state schools as opposed to independent schools. A recent study of successful state school applicants to Oxford and Cambridge conducted on behalf of the Sutton Trust (Watts 2002), found that many of those interviewed saw Oxbridge as academically and socially intimidating. Similarly, research by the National Foundation for Educational Research (see Vice-Chancellors Working Party on Access 1999, Appendix 8) into students attitudes to applying to Oxford and Cambridge found that some students did not consider applying because of their perceptions of student life at these universities. This included their perceptions of the cost of living, the social mix, and the college and tutorial systems. Other barriers to applications included potential students perception of the selection and application processes and the content of syllabi. They also found that young males were more likely to apply than young females.
16
McCrum (1998) argued that the admissions interview biased against state school pupils, and Mellanby & Stein (2000) investigated an admissions test based on approaches to learning that would not bias against this group. They found that their test appeared to be successful and warranted further investigation. 3.5 Indicators of academic performance at Cambridge University The Joint Committee on Academic Performance (2003) at the University of Cambridge has recently published a summary of a report on Indicators of Academic Performance. The first part of the report, based on data from over 4000 students, looked at relations between student characteristics and academic success as determined by degree results (Tripos). The conclusion to this part of the report is reproduced below:
The summary of findings from [the] analysis shows that the factors associated with academic success at Cambridge are very complex. The strongest associations are between class of degree and subject area, followed by gender and to a lesser extent ethnicity. No association is found between class of degree and either social class or type of school attended. However, the three way interactions show that, in different subject areas, the students' gender, ethnicity, and to a lesser extent the type of school they attended, interact in different ways to produce variations in academic outcomes depending on the subject area. Given the extent of the variation it would appear that each subject area has its own 'profile' in terms of which combination of variables is likely to produce success. For example, the 'profile' of a successful student in History is very different from that of a successful student in Law. (Joint Committee on Academic Performance Report, 2003, p.23)
The results show that differences in degree results cannot be ascribed to any one single variable, and that gender and subject studied are the two largest sources of variation. With the single exception of black students, the fact that working class students and students from non-white ethnic groups are in a minority within the student body does not affect their academic performance. The second part of the report contains a description of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of feedback from a cohort study with 355 Cambridge students that was used to explore the gender gap in examinations. It looked at gender differences in perceptions of the role of learning and examinations, in examination preparation, in relations between performance and understanding, in the transition from the school system, and finally through teaching roles. Again, part of the conclusions are reproduced below:
[It is] speculated that women may lose ground in Tripos examinations, in the minority of Faculties and Departments where there is a large gender gap, because they have either been unable to work in the way they would have preferred throughout the degree or because the way they have chosen to work is not one that is rewarded in examinations. It is these circumstances rather than any difference in ability which may depress their results. However, [the author] drew further implications from the suggestion that women tend to see the Tripos as an opportunity to increase their personal understanding, while men are more inclined to tailor their intellectual development to public success. As we have seen, if these differences in approach remain beneath the surface, men and women may misunderstand each other in learning contexts and women may be misunderstood by staff who themselves
17
may be more or less instrumental in their approach to Tripos examinations. It is also clear that in these Faculties and Departments some of the students felt there was little consensus about what constituted 'excellence', and consequently they were unsure about what is expected of them. (Joint Committee on Academic Performance Report, 2003, p.33)
The conclusion notes that differences may be related to variation in expectations or goals, but the report also identified many instances of good practice that would seem to benefit all students. These include a match between student motivation and methods of learning with the teaching approach within the subject; a recognition of students' prior experiences which is reflected in both the content and the approach to teaching in the first year; a welcoming environment which makes the transition from school to university easier; and clear and constructive feedback through the supervision system and help with focusing one's efforts. These elements of good practice are consistent with those from the literature on studentcentred teaching in most universities (for example, Ramsden 2003) and can be expected to also apply to Oxford.
4.0 Qualitative differences in experience of tutorials

In preparation for the quantitative part of the study reported here, we interviewed undergraduate students on their perceptions of the Oxford tutorial. This part of the study sought to examine the following questions: What do students understand to be the role of tutorials in their learning? Are there relations between their conceptions of the tutorials and their understanding of the role of the work they complete in preparation for the tutorial? Do students understandings of their own role in the tutorial and the role of the tutor vary with their conceptions of the Oxford tutorial? Are the conceptions of knowledge that students adopt in the tutorial related to their conception of the tutorial? Twenty-eight undergraduates from a variety of disciplines and years of study were interviewed about their experiences of studying at Oxford. The students were volunteers. They were asked to describe a typical, but actual, week of study. The interviews were then structured around this description, with particular attention paid to the meaning to students of various activities that they engaged in their studies. In all cases this led to a discussion about the tutorial system. In the analysis, the focus was on qualitative variation in the ways in which the students experienced tutorials at Oxford. The different meanings that students assigned to tutorials were used to form categories that were formed and reformed. The aim was to offer a hierarchy of empirically grounded and logically consistent categories of description of the different ways in which students experienced tutorials (Marton &Booth 1997). Four qualitatively different ways of understanding the role of tutorials were constituted in the analysis of the interviews:
18
A: Tutorials as the tutor explaining to the student what the student does not understand; B: Tutorials as the tutor showing the student how to see the subject in the way that the tutor does; C: Tutorials as the tutor bringing things into relation to each other to help the student develop a new perspective in the wider context of the discipline; and D: Tutorials as the tutor and the student exchanging different points of view on the topic and both coming to a new understanding. These qualitatively different understandings of the tutorial were found to be related to different student understandings of the role of work that was completed in preparation for the tutorial, the role of the student and the tutor in tutorials, and the conception of knowledge that students adopted in the tutorial. These dimensions are included in descriptions of the categories below. A: Tutorials as the tutor explaining to the student what the student does not understand Students adopting this conception saw the purpose of tutorials as being to check their progress and to ensure the efficient transfer of information relevant to the topic that was the subject of the tutorial. The role of the preparation work was for the student to produce an artefact, whether an essay or solutions to a series of problems, that would be used by the tutor to assess how much the student knew, to help the student gain knowledge that they could use in the tutorial and to help them develop an overview of the topic. The students adopting this conception saw their role in the tutorial was to be tested by their tutor, to use the information they had gained to answer the tutors questions, and to absorb information from the tutor. They saw the tutors role was to test the student and to provide the student with new information on the topic. Thus under this conception of tutorials, students perceived knowledge as accumulative and uncontested. This is not to say that they felt the truth could always be found but rather that they felt that new knowledge could be added to old knowledge unproblematically and that, given a certain set of facts, there was a correct way to interpret them. Two quotes from students illustrate some of these dimensions.
Doing the [preparatory] work is the important thing, then what you get out of the tutorial is 1) you see whether youve done it right or not, 2) youre learning whether youve done it in an efficient way or whether theres a better way of doing it, 3) you learn whether its really that relevant or not. So the purpose of them is to make sure you know it, teach you the good ways of doing it, giving you more information, telling you whats relevant, and thats about it. (Fourth Year Physicist) It varies very much between tutor and tutor, some tutors tutorials are like a lecture, you come away with very organised notes, adding a lot to the information you didnt know before, which is very useful. Other times you leave the tutorial not feeling like youve gained a lot from it. Some people write essays on a very high theoretical plane where I just couldnt follow them, and some people, like me, try to stick to facts and relatively simpler ideas. So the type of tutorial that suits you depends on that a lot. I like dealing with facts, I like information I can say I know this is true, or within reasonable doubt I know this is true because you cant know for certain in history. (Second Year Historian)
19
B: Tutorials as the tutor showing the student how to see the subject in the way that the tutor does Students adopting this conception of tutorials considered the purpose of tutorials to be for the student to get to understand the topic in the way that the tutor did. They saw the role of the preparation work was for the student to show the tutor how much they had understood the material that they had studied for the tutorial. They perceived that their role was to discuss the tutors ideas in relation to the ideas they had gained from their preparatory work, whilst they saw the tutors role was to ask students questions that took them beyond their initial understanding of the topic and to explain the topic in the way that they viewed it. In this case, students saw knowledge as uncontested but it was not seen as accumulative as, with this conception, an understanding of the topic was based on more than an accumulation of facts. It was, rather, concerned with seeing the material in the correct way. Again, quotes from two of the students interviewed are used to illustrate this conception.
[The purpose of tutorials is] to put forward the things that Ive discovered from the reading that Ive done, to ask questions of areas that Im not too sure about and to have my knowledge of the subject probed by the tutor through their questions and then have them explain the way that they view it and discuss those interpretations of the particular topics, and then get a better understanding of the topics as a whole, and a much deeper understanding. ... The tutors tend to explain the slightly more subtle aspects of the different parts of the work that were investigating. They tend to ask questions, rather leading questions, and then they lead you though the answers that they want you to come to until you come to the conclusion that they hope you do come to, and by then you tend to understand what theyre trying to get you to understand and it just gives you a better understanding of the topic. (First Year Biochemist) Basically, Ill ask him a question often itll be that he works through it on the board and he just keeps on working through it. I basically write down what he is doing and try to understand what he is doing. Sometimes its just that I havent got a picture in my mind of what is happening I can do all this maths, but I dont have an image. Im not very good at drawing graphs of these things in my mind and I cant just see what would happen say to a billiard ball in a field and I cant see why its flying a particular direction, whereas hell be able to visualise what its doing. I get a lot of new ways of thinking about problems out of them basically. I get a lot out of them because I pick up their ways of approaching problems. (Third Year Physicist)
C: Tutorials as the tutor bringing aspects of the topic into relation to each other to help the student develop a new perspective in the wider context of the discipline Students adopting this conception saw the purpose of tutorials as developing their ideas to gain a new perspective on the topic, and this new perspective may also have been new to the tutor. They saw the role of preparatory work was for them to develop an argument about the topic that was then the focus of the tutorial. They saw their role in the tutorial was to discuss the relations that the tutor developed in relation to the students preparatory work, whilst they saw that the role of the tutor was to develop these relations. Under this conception of the tutorial, knowledge was seen by the student to be contested in that they appeared not to perceive that there was one correct way to think about issues within their discipline. Two illustrative quotes are given below.
20
I see it [the tutorial] as an opportunity really to show off a bit, show him what I can do, and then get his better and more learned ideas for where I could be going in the future. They are your opportunity to talk to this very wise person, who knows all the answers, and you dont want them giving you the answers, but you want them to make you think differently, and thats what its about, thinking differently. (First Year English) The most scary tutor I ever had was quite terrifying actually. He was very nice but his tutorials, you used to come out of them like youd forcibly rearranged the ideas in your head, and youd actually understand it in the end. Hed pick out things you didnt even realise youd misunderstood and interrogate you about it until you knew what youd misunderstood. Thats what tutors should do really otherwise you dont learn anything from them, so theres not really much point in them teaching you really. They may as well give you a list of books to read for the term and thatll be it. If they dont question you and find out what you havent understood, then you tend not to learn anything new from them. You might learn new facts, but you wont gain any new understanding. By being asked questions you find out what you have and havent understood, and are pushed into understanding things yourself, as opposed to just told what your tutor thinks about them. If the tutor asks you a factual question they probably know the answer. If they ask you what you think about something, they generally dont know the answer. Well obviously they dont know what you think about it, but they also dont know what you should think about it. (Second Year Experimental Psychologist)
The quotation from the psychology student is interesting because it gives evidence of the conceptions forming a nested hierarchy. The first part of the quotation focuses on the tutors role in the tutorial being to ask questions that takes the student beyond their initial understanding as in Conception B. However, the second part of the quotation moves to focus on the student developing their own understanding of the topic that may differ from the understanding of the tutor. D: Tutorials as the tutor and the student exchanging different points of view on the topic and both coming to a new understanding Students adopting this conception of tutorials saw that the purpose of tutorials was for the students and tutors to develop their ideas about the topic. As with conception C, they perceived that the role of their preparatory work was for them to develop an initial argument about the topic that was then the focus of the tutorial. The role of both student and tutor was to discuss their ideas about the topic in relation to the students preparatory work, whilst the tutor had an additional responsibility to chair the discussion. Here the relationship between the student and the tutor was seen as more reciprocal than under conception C, whilst, as with conception C, knowledge was seen as contested.
It will often involve a discussion of both the plays relation to each other and its basically a discussion where you can either agree or disagree with whoever and it keeps going until the tutor says right, thats the end. In that respect it doesnt particularly have a conclusion to it like an essay would, it just gets you thinking and often leaves you with a different perspective at the end of it, which is pretty much what I would want to get out of it. . . The whole idea is that it will prompt you to re-think what youve written or to add something new to it. (Second Year English) The apogee of the tutorial is where you dont know, the tutor doesnt know, but between the two of you youre going to analyse this thing. I love it when youre in with
21
someone like Professor X and hes just whacking books off the shelf, getting maps out. Hes there on his hands and knees and between the two of you, you manage to clarify something and thats a tremendous experience. (Third Year History)
In summary, there is variation in the way that students conceive of the role of tutorials in their learning. Some students felt that the tutorial was mainly there for the tutor to impart information to the student, whilst others saw that the primary purpose of the tutorial was for students to explore and develop their understanding of the topic under discussion. This range of categories shows that there is qualitative variation in the way students experience tutorials and that students from similar disciplines and years of study were found to have differing conceptions of the Oxford tutorial. We have used these data to develop some of the items in the questionnaire study described in the following sections, and importantly to capture the qualitative variation that enables correlation studies to be designed and conducted.
5.0 Qualitative differences in students experience of collegiality

An interview study on students experience of learning through collegiality was also undertaken in the first year of this project to support the quantitative study. Students were asked to describe how life in their college, outside the formal teaching-learning process, was related to their experience of learning. Twenty-eight undergraduates from a variety of disciplines and years of study were interviewed. The students were volunteers. They were asked to describe a typical, but actual, week of study. The interviews were then structured around this description, with particular attention paid to activities that they saw being related to collegiality. Students describe two different forms of collegiality. In the first, they talk of the feelings generated by their sense of allegiance to the college and to colleagues. The second form relates to the various types of interpersonal contact experienced in college. While these forms of collegiality do not form a hierarchy as described in the previous section for tutorials, there is a sense in which students engage to a greater or lesser degree in contact with others, and with different others, and experience different levels of support for their learning through this contact. 5.1 Allegiance to college and colleagues In addition to the domestic (meals, etc) support provided by colleges, students also get support for their learning through the collegiate system. At the core of students descriptions is that learning is enhanced by a sense of allegiance which, with pride in, and respect for their college, fosters a desire to not let the college down. Students also have a sense of belonging to a college, and this feeling contributes to a reduction in alienation and development of friendships and an opportunity to do things.
22
theres a lot more opportunity to do things, to get involved with politics, work, sport, music, theres so many more activities and things going on, that youve got more chance to get involved. [and in a] small environment, even if people are different to you and you dont want to socialise with them, you still pick up on who they are and what theyre like, which means that Id say you get more - I dont know if respect is the right word, but that kind of thing, I cant think of the word. So thats really good in terms of it probably reduces the feelings of exclusion. Id say in a college system, you dont feel quite as lonely.
5.2 Contact with others Students who describe learning support through the informal contact with other people in their college, talk of four different types of people with whom they have contact: a) Contact with other students in the same discipline and same year This is the major type of contact between students, and because of the tutorial system, the major form of informal collegiate learning support.
During lunch I would usually sit with my year, there are two or three PPEists in the second year that I know relatively well, most of them have either been as my social or academic parent at the beginning of the year or I met them in first week when I arrived relatively early and there were no First Years to talk to. I also chat to some of them over the Internet, because we have Ethernet connections in our rooms. I do have conversations with them sometimes, but the vast majority of conversations are with the First Years.
b) Contact with other students in the same discipline in other years The small size of a discipline group within a college enhances the possibility of exchanges that lead to learning between students in different years. This was often talked about in terms of learning how more experienced students had made their way through the system.
Interviewer: Do you do much talking to colleagues in English and talking to colleagues in PPE or science or whatever? To what extent does that happen in the college? Student: Certainly quite a lot as far as talking to fellow English students is concerned, and not just fellow Second Year English students, but also talking to First Year English students and Third Year English students partly because there are benefits in talking to them, particularly talking to the Third Year students because they know their way through the system, theyve had the experience of being a Second Year and have made mistakes and have learnt and theyre in the course of making mistakes and learning in the Third Year and preparing for Finals. So theres a significant element in that, but also I suppose when you have a group of people to whom you could talk then youre more likely to talk to those people with whom you have something in common and studying the same subject is certainly quite a [unclear] for that. So theres quite a lot of talking over lunch, in the quad, in the Junior Common Room, over coffee, in the pub, going to the theatre together.
c) Contact with students in different disciplines One of the advantages of the small, multi-disciplinary collegiate context is that students may have the opportunity to spend more time with students from different disciplines in ways that may contribute to learning. This experience seemed less common amongst the students who were interviewed:
23
Student: You do also talk to other students. Theres a greater sense of engagement if you know that theres some relevance to your subject and the nature of the study of English is such that History, Politics, Philosophy, Economics, Theology and Religion all have very significant relevance. Interviewer: Would you ever deliberately engage in a conversation with a student from one of those fields as a way of informing yourself about your own English essays, or do you rely on the books and the primary resources? Student: You might look for a sort of sense of directional guidance but that doesnt happen that often, its sort of painting in background detail, rather than going for you wouldnt construct an essay or even a paragraph in an essay, on what a fellow student said. Interviewer: Right but you might use it to find a source of information. Student: Yeah, or they might say something that you think oh, thats got some relevance, Ill go off and look into that. That happens occasionally, but not very frequently.
d) Contact with tutors/fellows The close geographic proximity of tutors/fellows and students may not be that different to that in departments in other universities, but informal contact with academic staff is an additional source of learning support that may, in some cases, be more accessible because of the type of formal tutor/student contact developed in the college system.
Interviewer: Do you have much contact with the fellows, the tutors, outside of your tutorials? Student1: Yes, you tend to see them and theyre quite open to discuss things with you so if you have a problem and things like that you can go and see them. You can actually go and see them in their study room, knock on the door and they usually have two/three minutes to devote to you. Theyre actually quite good and quite helpful because when you tend to get stressed they have a sort of soothing voice and theyre quite wise. Interviewer: How much a part of a collegial atmosphere are they are they around to be talked to, do they chat with people in quads? Student2: Yeah they do. It varies from tutor to tutor some tutors are very friendly, talkative, responsive, youll sit down at lunch and talk quite happily to them predominantly about work but it may also be about their skiing holiday. That however is influenced by whether the college has a high table or not, even at lunchtime, so that some colleges that Ive been to, the tutors mingle with the students, at ours its unusual for tutors to sit on the same table. It only happens if the high table is full, but there is a lot of interaction because you do run into them in the quad or indeed walking along the street and sometimes youll be busy, very busy, sometimes youll stop and talk to them.
From this range of responses, a series of questionnaire items were developed for the quantitative part of this study that sought to examine students sense of allegiance to their college and how the different types of informal contact described above impacted on their learning. They became the collegiality scale described in the next section. The seven items derived from the data above are shown in Annexe V.
24
6.0 The model of learning used to inform the study

The aim of this research is to explore ways to improve the quality of the outcomes of student learning at the University of Oxford. We approached this task using a model (Figure 6.1) to select the key areas to be explored and the hypothesised relations between them. As noted above, previous research has been conducted with Oxford University students on some elements of this model, mainly the relations between elements represented by the broken lines.
Presage Student characteristics

(eg previous schooling, year of study, gender)
Process
Product
Motivation & Conceptions

(eg conception of learning, self efficacy)
Approach to learning
(eg surface, deep)
Outcomes of learning
(eg FHS, satisfaction)
Perceptions of environment
(e.g. teaching, workload, goals)
Course context
(eg division, tutorial system)
Figure 6.1: Adapted 3P model of student learning
This model, which is an adaptation of Biggs 3P model of student learning (Biggs, 1993), suggests that in learning, Presage elements (Student characteristics and Course context) are related to Process elements (Motivation & Conceptions, Perceptions of the learning environment, and Approaches to learning) and that these are related to the Product element, or the Outcomes of student learning. Differences in students characteristics, such as gender or their previous schooling may be directly related to differences in the quality of their learning outcome. Similarly, differences in the course context, such as levels of resources (libraries, computing equipment) may relate to differences in
25
outcomes. Studies exploring these relations are well known and some have already been conducted at Oxford. This study investigates all elements of the model, but focuses more on the central path through the model. It hypothesises that motivation and conceptions of learning are experienced differently by the same student in different situations. If this is so, how do these variables relate to students characteristics and to the context of the course? Similarly for students perceptions of their learning environment. Differences in approaches to learning are known, from studies in contexts other than at Oxford, to be related to outcomes of learning (Prosser & Trigwell 1999). But are similar relations found at Oxford? And finally how do students perceptions, conceptions and motivations relate to their outcomes of learning? We focus on this central set of relations, and these questions, because they are aspects of the students environment (rather than characteristics of the student) that, if changed, may lead to the improvement of student learning. For example, relations between perceived workload and learning outcomes suggest that the quality of learning may be enhanced if workload is perceived to be not too high. Such a pattern of relations is not found for indicators that are often included in studies of this sort. For example, correlations between the average number of hours university students report that they spend studying in a week and their approaches to learning, their overall satisfaction and their anticipated degree results are all low (less than 0.1). This suggests that in the context of learning at Oxford, increasing the number of hours worked is unlikely to enhance the quality of learning.
6.1 Elements of the model: Variables as Scales and Items 6.1.1 Presage: Student Characteristics In this study we made use of three aspects of the students characteristics or prior experience: gender, year of study at Oxford, and type of school attended before coming to Oxford. We also asked students how many hours study they did each week, on average. 6.1.2 Presage: Course Context In addition to collecting information on each students course (from which we derived their Division3), we asked them to indicate the percentage of tutorials they have that are given by graduate students, the percentage of tutorials they have outside their own college, and the percentage of their tutorials/classes that are in groups of one or two, three to five, and six or more.
Using the University Student Administration Section categorisation of division in the case of Joint Honours courses that involve more than one division.
26
6.1.3 Process: Motivations & Conceptions Conceptions of learning (Scale) (Annexe V) Eight items were used to form a scale that measures conceptions of learning in tutorials and conceptions of learning in the degree as a whole. Four items look at the extent to which students see the tutorial system as a positive experience that aims to support higher-level learning. The other four items focus on students perceived purpose of their learning in their degree. The scale was developed from the qualitative research described in Section 4 and, based on previous research (Trigwell & Ashwin 2003), higher scores on this scale are hypothesised to be related to higher quality outcomes of learning. Motivation (Scale) (Annexe V) The motivation scale is a combination of items that include students assessment of the perceived value of the activities with which they are involved. Perceived value includes interest items, utility items and importance items. The scale also includes items on the intellectual stimulation of the course and the extent to which a course stimulates interest in that field of study. Higher scores on this scale are hypothesised to be related to higher quality outcomes of learning. Self-efficacy (Scale) (Annexe V) This scale gives an indication of students confidence in their own ability to achieve their desired outcomes in the context of their studies at Oxford. It is a scale adapted from selfefficacy items in the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich et al. 1989). Higher scores on self-efficacy are hypothesised as being related to higher quality learning outcomes. 6.1.4 Process: Perceptions of Learning Environment Good Teaching (Scale) (Annexe V) The Good Teaching Scale measures perceptions of the teachers ability to contribute to student learning. It is characterised by practices such as providing students with feedback on their progress, explaining things, making the course interesting, motivating students, and understanding students problems. There is a body of research linking these practices to learning outcomes. High scores on the Good Teaching Scale are associated with the perception that these practices are present. Lower scores reflect a perception that these practices occur less frequently. Clear Goals and Standards (Scale) (Annexe V) The Clear Goals and Standards Scale measures the extent to which students have a clear idea of what, at a broad level, is required of them in their degree. Even though the establishment of clear goals and standards in a course could be considered part of good teaching in a broader sense, it would be possible to utilise the practices encompassed by the Good Teaching Scale but fail to establish clear goals for the course and clear expectations of the standard of work required from students.
27
Appropriate Assessment (Scale) (Annexe V) This measure concentrates on one particular aspect of assessment and is not exhaustive in its measurement of assessment approaches. It focuses on the extent to which assessment emphasised recall of factual information rather than higher order thinking. Embedded in the Appropriate Assessment Scale is the assumption that assessment that does not focus on factual recall concentrates instead on higher order processes. Appropriate Workload (Scale) (Annexe V) The Appropriate Workload Scale focuses on the extent to which the workload given is perceived to be manageable. High scores on this scale indicate perceptions of reasonable workloads. These are students who disagree with the proposition that The workload was too heavy and who agreed that I was generally given enough time to understand the things I had to learn. The evidence from research on student learning in higher education (Ramsden 2003) is that when workloads are perceived to be too heavy students adopt an approach to learning which emphasises skimming the surface of topics without being able to spend the time to engage and understand the material it is hoped they will learn. Collegiality (Scale) (Annexe V) The Collegiality Scale focuses on the extent to which students feel a part of, and contribute academically to, a college community. It includes the two forms of collegiality found in interviews to be related to learning (allegiance and contact with others, Section 5). It gives an indication of students perceptions of the benefits to their learning from the collegial system, and is designed to capture the contribution to learning from a key element of students experience at Oxford. Higher scores on this scale are hypothesised to be related to higher quality learning outcomes. Course coherence and academic independence (Items) Two individual items are used to gauge (a) students response to the extent to which their college and department work together to offer a coherent programme of study, and (b) the extent to which students feel they are encouraged to develop their own academic interests. The former was triggered by observations in the Commission of Inquiry Report (1997a, Recommendation 54c). The latter was triggered by the studies of Moore (1968), Dover (1983) and Kiosses (1997). Lower scores on these items are hypothesised to be associated with lower deep approach to learning and higher surface approach to learning scores. 6.1.5 Process: Approach to Learning Deep Approach (Scale) (Annexe V) The motivation associated with a deep approach to learning is to understand ideas and seek meanings. In adopting this approach students have an intrinsic interest in the task and an expectation of enjoyment in carrying it out. They adopt strategies that help satisfy their curiosity, such as making the task coherent with their own experience, relating and distinguishing evidence and argument, looking for patterns and underlying principles,
28
integrating the task with existing awareness, seeing the parts of a task as making up the whole, theorising about it, forming hypotheses, and relating understanding from other parts of the same subject, and from different subjects. Overall they have a focus on the meaning in the argument, the message, or the relationships but they are aware that the meanings are carried by the words, the text, or the formulae. Higher scores on this scale are hypothesised to be related to higher quality learning outcomes. Surface Approach (Scale) (Annexe V) In adopting a surface approach to learning, students see tasks as external impositions and they have the intention to cope with these requirements. They are instrumentally or pragmatically motivated and seek to meet the demands of the task with minimum effort. They adopt strategies which include: a focus on unrelated parts of the task, separate treatment of related parts (for example principles and examples), a focus on what are seen as essentials (factual data and their symbolic representations) the reproduction of the essentials as accurately as possible, and rote memorising information for assessment purposes rather than for understanding. Overall they would appear to be involved in study without reflection on purpose or strategy, with the focus of that study being on the words, the text, or the formulae. Higher scores on this scale are hypothesised to be related to lower quality learning outcomes. 6.1.6 Product: Outcomes of Learning Final Honour Schools degree result (not supplied by students) Just over 500 of the students who returned a questionnaire were in their final year of study. Their Final Honour Schools degree classification is known for 428 cases and is included as an Outcomes of learning variable. All students were asked to indicate the degree result they expected to get. The correlation between expected and actual results for the 428 students is of a medium effect size (Annexe III) but analyses in this report are conducted only on actual outcomes (Sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.10 and 8.11). Satisfaction (Items) (Annexe V) Students satisfaction with the quality of their course, and the contribution from their college to that course, are both outcome measures and both have been included as individual items. Key Skills (Items) (Annexe V) These seven items attempt to take into account the extent to which university courses add to the generic skills that their graduates might be expected to possess. Discipline-specific skills and knowledge are often crucial to prospects for employment and further study. Nevertheless, the emphasis on key skills stems from the belief that knowledge quickly becomes obsolete, and the skills that may have been acquired in the learning process should endure and be applicable in a broader context. Skills typically identified in this context include communication skills, the capacity to learn new skills and procedures, the capacity to make decisions and solve problems, the ability to apply knowledge to the workplace, and the capacity to work with minimum supervision.
29
6.2 Validity of the model The remainder of this report describes the nature of the responses by students to the individual elements of this model, and to the relations found between the elements (e.g. how perceptions of workload relate to outcomes of learning). The validity of the model depends on the existence of an overall set of relations, or patterns between the defined aspects of the students experience, as described by the model. Evidence of these relations is described in Annexe IV, using a cluster analysis of key variables. The cluster analysis, which yielded a two-cluster solution, shows that in one cluster, students who indicated that they were motivated, who have confidence that they can achieve their objectives, and who experience a supportive learning environment, are the students who are more likely to say they adopt a deep approach to learning. These same students are also more likely to have achieved a higher class of Honours in Final Honour Schools than their colleagues. In a second cluster, students who on average have higher scores on a surface approach to learning feel less confident that they will achieve their aims, are less motivated, and experience a less supportive learning environment. They have a lower average achievement than their colleagues. These patterns are consistent with the predictions of the model and support the expectations included at the end of the description of each scale in Section 6.1. Results for elements of the model scales and items and relations between them are described in Sections 7 and 8.
7.0 Students response to items and scales

The questionnaire sent to students contains just over 70 items on aspects of learning at Oxford. Most of these items are designed to work together in ten scales of 3-8 items addressing the key areas of the investigation, rather than as interpretable, individual items. The ten scales used, and a short description giving the meaning and purpose of each scale are described above (Section 6). The items included in each scale, and the full range of responses are given in Annexes I, II and V. Some items in the questionnaire are designed as stand alone items, and the results from these items are presented in Section 7.2. The full set of item results is included in Annexe I. 7.1 Results from questionnaire scales Scale means and a bar chart of distributions of agreeing and disagreeing students are shown below. For all of the results of the eight scales discussed in this section, higher means and lower percentages of disagreeing students indicate that students perceived the environment as being more supportive. For each scale we include a number of illustrative student quotes that show the range of views expressed rather than being a proportional representation of the different views expressed by students in their written responses to the questionnaire.
30
Scale
Mean
Disagreement Agreement
Appropriate Workload 2329 2.95 Clear goals 2328 3.30 Conception of learning 2329 3.31 Self-efficacy 2328 3.52 Teaching 2329 3.48 Assessment 2329 3.88 Collegiality 2329 3.75 Motivation 2329 4.01 0 25 50 % of respondents 75 100
In general students appear to perceive the learning environment at Oxford as very supportive of their learning. High percentages of students agree with the items that make up the motivation, collegiality and appropriate assessment scales. As indicated in the next section, more than three-quarters of Oxford students are intellectually stimulated by their courses. Possible areas for development may be indicated by higher proportions of students disagreeing with a particular scale. More than a fifth of students disagree with the items that make up the appropriate workload, clear goals and standards, and conceptions of learning scales. Our view is that these results offer potential starting points for discussion between the Institute for the Advancement of University Learning and divisions and colleges about ways in which the environment that Oxford offers might support the learning of its students even more effectively than it does at present. Students approaches to learning scale results are not included in this section because their written comments tended to focus on their perceptions of their environment rather than the ways in which they approached their studies. However, we do note that students scores on deep approaches to learning items are generally very high, and their scores on surface approach items are very low, which suggests that students were generally trying to understand the meaning of what they were learning rather than simply rote learning material so that they could reproduce it when they were assessed. These scores on the deep and surface approach scales (Annexe II) are positive indicators of the quality of the learning environment at Oxford. Workload The percentage of students disagreeing that the workload is appropriate (45%) is the highest for any scale (except surface approach to learning), and a higher percentage than those who agree (43%). As relations are found to exist between students perceptions of
31
their workload and the quality of their learning (see Sections 8.1 and 8.8), this result suggests that students perceptions of their workload is an issue that the University might focus on if it wants to improve the quality of students learning. Students written comments seemed to support this view. Some students did see some benefit of their high workload, although it should be noted that this scale is a measure of whether the workload is considered to be too high:
The workload is sometimes too heavy, but on the other hand that pushes us to be selective rather than being spoon-fed. Hence it has positive effects, even if it also means we often find ourselves lacking the broad overview and the deep understanding it would be desirable to have. Whilst the workload is extreme, the pressure is enjoyable. But some lines of thought warrant investigation that I am unable to given them due to time constraints. I feel that Oxford would benefit from having longer terms whilst retaining the same amount of work and study, as at the moment there is so much continued pressure during the terms that students frequently have to spend a large portion of their time down recovering and decompressing, without devoting some of this time to essential reading and personal research, as might otherwise be the case. This would have a beneficial effect on both the students state of mind and their academic results. I came to Oxford with a real passion for my subject, however, I find it a great shame that the emphasis is very much on getting your essay in every week there is no time to read into particular aspects of my subjects that interest me life seems to revolve around a conveyer belt of essays!
Similar conclusions have been described in the University of Oxford (2003) Council paper on Learning and Teaching in the Collegiate University: Teaching Norms and Subject Families, which states that The evidence suggests that there is a problem, in some areas at least, of inappropriately high workloads and a lack of clarity in course aims which may be damaging the quality of learning.. The report associates high workloads with the combined effects of tutorial demands and growth in other kinds of provision. It notes the high value attached by staff and students alike, to the principle of tutorial teaching. However it argues that the steady increase in the quantity of tutorials may have been at the expense of their best qualities and it questions the appropriateness of the tutorial for all of the tasks to which it is now put.. Our results, based on students perceptions, suggest that other factors, such as a students belief that all books on a (long) reading list need to be consulted, or that essays need to address all aspects of a topic raised in a text, may also be contributing to the workload being experienced as too high. Clear Goals The majority of students (63%) agree that the goals and standards of their course are clear, although just over a quarter of students disagree. Students comments in this area focused on the difficulty of discovering the quality of work that was expected of them at Oxford:
32
I often found it difficult to know what is expected of me how much time should be spent writing essays, how much work should be done over vacation if I should try and accumulate a lot of general knowledge or learn a few subjects in detail etc. It would be useful to know more of what is expected of you during the course. Perhaps if the essays were graded it would be easier to plot ones progress. When I first came to Oxford I did feel as if Id been thrown in at the deep end and it does take a long time to work out exactly what is expected of you. In the first year I was always being told that my essays werent structured properly but I had no help on how to rectify that. Being at Oxford is completely different to being at a state school and some tutors need to take that into consideration.
Conception of learning The views of learning of 68% of the students surveyed appeared to be consistent with those advocated by the University (that is, they see learning as, for example, the development of personal understanding rather than the accumulation of facts), whilst about a quarter of students disagreed with the items making up this scale. Students written comments ranged from students who emphasised how their desire to learn is an important factor in their enjoyment of Oxford, to students who felt that there was too much emphasis on regurgitating the ideas of their tutors or those expressed in texts at the expense of an emphasis on original thought, to those who felt there was insufficient emphasis on learning the basic facts:
A desire to understand and learn, rather than doing well in my degree, has made a huge difference. It means that I really dont mind how I do or what people think as long as I have learnt something and enjoyed the process. I find my tutorials very interesting and regard them as the most useful and enjoyable part of studying at Oxford. I particularly enjoy tutorials that are challenging and in which the tutor makes you think, asks thought-provoking questions and requires you to defend your argument. I have however been disappointed that the majority of my tutorials are not like this. The majority of tutorials seem to be based on understanding the topic and especially the tutors own opinion on the topic. Some tutors seem disinterested in the propositions of original thought and new ideas. I feel that my course focuses a little too much on reading and regurgitating knowledge. I would have enjoyed it more if there was more time to explore and develop my own ideas and investigate the relevance of key concepts to the contemporary world around us. In short, I feel that Oxford is entrenched in the past and in academia and is not driving me to develop relevant, progressive ideas. There is a culture of people striving for recognition of their own academic success, rather than a culture of real enthusiasm for the material being studied. I think that there is too much emphasis on coming up with our own ideas instead of learning the basic facts, so that Im trying to run before I can walk. Were always being told to criticise the ideas and findings of people who have many years of experience in the subject, but how is that meant to be possible when we barely know anything yet?
Self-efficacy Nearly three quarters of students agreed that they were confident in their ability to succeed on their courses, with 16% of students disagreeing. Students who wrote
33
comments that related to this scale focused on a perceived mismatch between their way of tackling their studies and the approach that they perceived as being valued at Oxford:
I feel that learning at Oxford is geared towards methods that more aggressive, confident (males?) people respond better to than people with low self-esteem and confidence towards their ability and progress. Being from a state school, I have found it very difficult to settle in to [my college]. I have felt bewildered and pressurized to change to become like other people. This has greatly reduced my confidence and made it difficult for me to study effectively.
Teaching The majority of students (74%) agreed that their teaching was good, with about 19% of students disagreeing. Students written comments that related to teaching focused mainly on their experience of tutorials. Comments ranged from praise for the excellence of the teaching that they had experienced, to expressions of a perception of distance between students and tutors, and complaints about a lack of feedback from tutors that led to a sense of a lack of clarity about the standard of the work students had produced:
I have had great tutors who, with their attention and advice, have consistently helped me to do well. Tutors are brilliant, so long as you are confident to ask for help. It is very easy to feel extremely isolated and at sea with work simply because the course is so grounded in individual study. I believe that tutors who attempt to engage with and respect their students are more effective teachers. I have spent most of my time here feeling that if I thought my tutors actually cared about me, I would be learning more. Things have improved though. Tutorials could be more effective if they were less terrifying and it would be easier to put forward ideas if they werent met with so much interrogation. It is very hard to know what is expected of me. Essays arent given any kind of grade or mark and comments focus on the negative not the positive. It isnt clear how much time should be spent on essays, reading or self-study.
Two items (15 and 63) in the Good Teaching Scale pick up on the feedback issue raised above, and in the Commission of Inquiry Report. Both items (15. My tutors put a lot of time into commenting (orally and/or in writing) on my work; and 63. My tutors normally give me helpful feedback on my progress) have proportions of disagreeing students at around 20%, similar to other items in the scale. Assessment The majority of students (86%) perceived their assessment as appropriate. Although it should be remembered that the surveys were completed before most of the students had experience of Final Honour Schools, this suggests that students felt that they were largely being assessed on their understanding of the subject matter of their degree. Comments relating to this scale focused on a lack of feedback from tutors and the pressure students felt was caused by Final Honour Schools, which in some cases they felt had adversely affected the quality of their learning:
34
Feedback from tutors needs to be improved. Essays should be properly marked with comments and points. It should be specifically pointed out what needs improvement and how this can be achieved The mere thought of finals (part 1 this June) makes me feel physically unwell as does the volume of work, notes and as yet blank answers to be filled in by me in the remaining four months. Whilst I may be capable and desirous of a first/2i I fear that apprehension, boredom and depression may lead me, as indicated by average marks to date, to do less well. As far as exams are concerned the fact that we didnt write exams for 1.5 years and then had to take all of them in 5 days covering 10 differed subjects put an unnecessary, artificial and pointless pressure on me.
Collegiality Over 88% of students perceived their college environment as supportive, compared to 8% who did not. There were many written comments that related to collegiality. Many students praised the supportive environment that was provided by their college and welcomed the range of extra-curricula activities that were available to them. However, some students appeared to feel alienated from the social climate at Oxford, despite in some cases finding their academic work stimulating:
I have found the intimate atmosphere that the college provides (in a social sense) to be extremely conducive to both learning and an enjoyable time at university. This applies not only to fellow undergraduates, but also tutors: the majority of academic staff are approachable at any time. I think [my college] is a fabulous place. Tutors are generous with their time and eager to make sure that students are studying subjects that they want to be studying. College life has meant that I can have a life outside of academic work with a number of friends all studying different subjects and with a range of interests. The number of other activities I am involved in have affected my learning here, as I strongly believe that it is important to contribute to College life, and to take advantage of opportunities, other than academic ones, that I have here. I therefore feel that I learn, not everything I can to the best of my ability, but that which is reasonable to, while being involved in a lot of other things. Often I feel that I have not necessarily done enough preparation as I would like, as I have been involved in sports or musical activities, as these are important to me too. The further factor that has affected my learning is the climate among the students here. Never in my life have I encountered a more close-minded, racist, and culturally prejudiced environment. This is not the fault of Oxford University, rather a fault of the society that brings these people here. However, bearing that in mind, I consider it an abdication of responsibility for Oxford not to confront the prejudices of the students of the University. Coming from quite a poor family, I feel added financial pressure on top of my academic pressure, and socially it is much harder for me to integrate. I feel socially segregated and isolated, and my time is spent entirely academically due to this.
35
Motivation A large majority of students (92%) appeared to place a high value on their academic work at Oxford, with only 6% of students disagreeing with the items that make up the motivation scale. In their written comments, students focused on the motivation they gained from the high academic standards demanded at Oxford, the importance of motivation in making the most of the opportunities offered at Oxford, the negative impact of a heavy workload on their levels of motivation, and their fears about the lack of motivation of their fellow students:
I think the course is challenging and demanding in its intellectual sophistication, and in the sheer volume of work set, and I believe that anything less would not have provoked me to attempt to achieve it. A lot of how well someone does depends on personal motivation. This dictates how much they get out of the tutorial system: tutors are there to guide us, not to tell us the answers or force us to work. A good degree must be based on the realisation that only the student him/herself is responsible for making the most of the wonderful opportunity of Oxford: a copyright library, and able minds with which to engage. With regards to the pace and the heavy workload at Oxford, I am beginning to find that my interest in the subject is diminishing. The focus is on simply getting the essay done rather than actually enjoying and engaging in the subject matter, and I feel that my essay responses are second rate because I dont have time to do the reading I would like to. A culture of anti-intellectualism is growing in Oxford there are too many students here who see Oxford as the end and not the beginning, they fail to appreciate the opportunity they have here and are content to do just what is required. There is not a hunger for intellectual stimulus outside of ones course; thinking and using long words outside of a tutorial is becoming uncool reading and tutorials are seen as a chore. I didnt work hard to get here just so I could get drunk. So much potential talent is wasted.
7.2 Results on individual items There were a number of items that were designed to operate as individual items. Students responses to some of these are presented in this section and the items are illustrated with quotes from the written comments made by students at the end of the questionnaire. Intellectual stimulation
1. My degree course is intellectually stimulating N 2323 Mean 4.34 S.D. 0.71
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
10
20
30 percentage
40
50
60
36
This result shows that a large majority (93%) of students surveyed agree that their course is intellectually stimulating. This is an excellent result and suggests that Oxford degree courses are succeeding in offering a stimulating intellectual environment to undergraduate students. A number of students commented on the level of intellectual stimulation offered at Oxford in their written responses. Comments included:
Simply being in an environment which lives and breathes learning does rub off on students psychologically, it is a major advantage also to know that one is often being tutored by leaders in their particular fields. Generally, Oxford has been a great experience for me. I am very glad I worked to get here and although the work is at times intense, it is overwhelmingly interesting.
Satisfaction with degree course

76. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of my degree course N 2326 Mean 4.02 S.D. 0.78
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
percentage
In line with the results of the Commission of Inquiry Report, this result shows that there were very few students (5%) who are not satisfied with the quality of their degree course, whilst 85% were satisfied. Positive and negative comments from students on this area included:
Since being at Oxford I have developed a real passion for my subject and want to carry on in graduate studies after graduating: this is, in part, due to excellent teaching and the tutorial system. I have learned a lot [at Oxford], but a very hard way. It seems that tutors are dimly aware that improvements can be made, they may even have an idea what they are, but as almost always, in practice, in the hectic life of Oxford their half-hearted measures fail. To improve, serious effort is needed to understand the daily lives of the students and the problems they face. A more practical, pragmatic approach is needed accepting reality and not just assuming that what works in theory will be all right in practice. It seems that changing Oxford is like suggesting the Seven Wonders of the World be demolished. Because of its great reputation and excellent graduates and staff, all is assumed to be well, but just because degree results are good doesnt mean things cant get better. If you select the best to start with that will always happen. I challenge the view that the Oxford system deserves this reverential treatment.
37
Satisfaction with colleges contribution to course

77. Overall I am satisfied with the quality of my colleges contribution to my degree course N 2321 Mean 3.89 S.D. 0.89
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 0 10 20 30 percentage 40 50 60
The majority of students (77%) were satisfied with their colleges contribution to the quality of their degree course, although it is interesting to note that this level of satisfaction was lower than students satisfaction with their degree courses. As student comments were specific to each of the colleges taking part in the survey, none are reproduced in this generic report. Tutorials and classes
10. The tutorial system has enhanced my learning on this degree course N 2322 Mean 4.43 S.D. 0.75
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 0 10 20 30 percentage 40 50 60
Almost all students (92%) agreed that the tutorial system had enhanced their learning. Only 3% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed with this item.
74. My learning has been enhanced by classes that supplement my tutorials N 2293 Mean 3.17 S.D. 1.10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 0 10 20 30 40 50
percentage
There was no consensus on whether classes had enhanced students learning, with 47% of students agreeing that they had, and 29% disagreeing. There are two possible reasons for this lack of consensus. One is that it may be related to the view expressed by some students that they felt that the purpose of the survey was to undermine the tutorial system. This could have led students to be less positive about classes in fear of providing evidence that might support a move towards classes. Another is that students have mixed
38
experiences of classes, which could reflect a lack of experience of teaching classes amongst some tutors.
56. I would welcome a move from a tutorial-driven system of teaching towards one with an increased emphasis on classes N 2321 Mean 1.63 S.D. 0.96
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
percentage
A large majority (85%) of the students surveyed do not agree that they would welcome a move from a tutorial-driven system of teaching. This issue triggered a large number of written comments from students. These included:
I feel that the benefits of tutorials are immensely significant and, in my subject at least, could not be supplied by a more class-based system. Classes are useful for largely factual components of the course but they would not be suitable for those elements of the degree which focus on understanding and independent thought. I am satisfied with the way my degree course works at the moment, but would be very disappointed if any of my tutorials were to be replaced by classes. The tutorial MUST be kept. Not only is it one of the most attractive features of an Oxford education, but it is the best way I have found of teaching knowledge and discussing ideas. The format and contact time are essential. It is also one of the main reasons why people apply to Oxford and to lose it would be to reduce the University to the standard of those it prides itself on being above. I see the move in [my] faculty towards classes from tutorials as highly detrimental. The subject lends itself to learning through lectures with further closer exploration in tutorials. By moving to classes, there is a greater tendency to avoid proper acquisition of concepts because it is not necessary for adequate performance in the class. Tutorials provide a far more incisive and personal development of ones understanding and ideas, which allows less room for the inevitable tendency to avoid unnecessary work which arises from the high intensity of the system. There is often not enough time to do more than one needs to do, particularly if one leads a life which includes pursuits other than academic work. More importantly, the time spent in a tutorial is far more productive for the student in terms of understanding and for development, since it is more precisely targeted. I am strongly in favour of the tutorial system. During the time I have spent at Oxford I have had several magical tutorials where a series of ideas suddenly fall into place this is a very exciting process! It is also one of the reasons I applied to Oxford in the first place. However I think it is very important to connect all the work I do in my course. Having eight tutorials a term and failing to connect them with each other and the papers is pointless. This is why I feel that [my colleges] system of giving classes and tutorials is very productive: this system wouldnt work without tutorials or without classes.
The 7% of students who agreed that they would welcome a move from a tutorial-driven system of teaching towards one with an increased emphasis on classes were found, in correlations with the Conceptions of learning scale, to be more likely to be working with a
39
conception of learning as gathering information and having it tested rather than as developing personal understanding. A similar correlation was found for the 2% of students who felt the tutorial system had inhibited their learning, These findings suggest that some of the students who do not value the tutorial system may be not be aware of its purpose. Taken together, items 10, 74 and 56 suggest that students value tutorials highly, learn from them, are far less sure about classes and certainly do not want a move away from tutorials towards a system based more on classes. Study skills
75.I have had sufficient support in developing the study skills I need to be successful on my degree course N 2302 Mean 3.17 S.D. 0.91
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 0 10 20 percentage 30 40
The response to this item was unusual with 37% of students giving a neutral response. Nearly a quarter of students did not feel that they had been given sufficient support to develop the study skills that they needed to be successful on their courses. This issue was the subject of quite a few written responses:
I feel it would be helpful to be told basic essay writing skills and what standard is expected of you when you first arrive, as there is, in my opinion, a large gap between degree and Alevel standards and expectations, but that you have to take a year or more to figure out what they are for yourself. Since exams at Oxford are the ultimate end point we need specific tuition in how to write an Oxford exam essay. Its a very specific skill that is never taught. The Oxford attitude that youre bright so should be able to figure it out gets taken too far sometimes. More skills help would be good e.g. voluntary drop in study/writing/speaking skills, lots more guidance on quality of work expected and marking systems so one knows what to aim for being just let loose in wonderful libraries is great fun but not always conducive to building skills adding pressure isnt always guaranteed to get the right results either.
If students are given additional support in developing the skills they require to engage with their discipline, then this support is best given on a discipline specific basis. This is because not only are the skills required by, for example, a Mathematics and an English student, very different, but also because the skills required for writing essays in more similar areas, such as in English and Theology, are also different. The available research evidence (for example Ramsden et al. 1986) suggests that such skills support is most successful if it is provided by teachers within the existing curriculum and is less successful if it is provided in generic skills workshops.
40
Financial pressures A consideration of the effect of financial pressures on students experiences of the learning environment at Oxford was outside of the scope of this study. However, there were a number of written comments that related to this issue. These comments tended to focus on two issues. One was the effect of financial pressures on students during term time, the other was how the necessity of taking on paid employment outside of term time meant that students had no time to review their work from the previous term or complete the preparatory work for the following term:
Financial pressures have deeply affected my ability to study, causing stress and worry with implications on my ability to cope with the workload. The financial pressures I have had to cope with during my degree have affected my work. During term time I am extremely busy with academic work and sporting and charity commitments but I can cope reasonably well. However, I find it ABSOLUTELY necessary to get paid work during the vacation. Time, travel and other constraints mean this is usually a low paid, local job rather than anything that could be counted as experience relevant to a future career. The short, pressured terms are supposed to be balanced by long vacations when work/material can be more leisurely digested or prepared. But I never have this time during my vacations so I inevitably never get an opportunity to review or prepare my work. I think this has/will seriously affect my ability to achieve a first or upper class 2:1 degree.
41
8.0 Relations between elements of the model

In this section we present the results from the eleven sets of relations between the key elements described in the model. Each set of relations is described in the sub-section with the same number as in the model below. Presage Student characteristics
(eg previous schooling, year of study, gender) 8.5
Process
Product
8.10
8.4

(eg conception of learning, self efficacy) 8.2
8.9
Approach to learning
(eg surface, deep) 8.1 8.8 8.11
8.3
Outcomes of learning
(eg FHS, satisfaction)
8.7
Perceptions of environment
(e.g. teaching, workload, goals) 8.6
Course context
(eg division, tutorial system)
Figure 8.1: Adapted 3P model of student learning
8.1 Relations between students perceptions of the learning environment and their approaches to learning When students experience their workload to be too high (low scores on the Appropriate Workload Scale) they are more likely to describe adopting an approach to learning which is focused on reproducing the study content rather than trying to understand it (higher scores on a surface approach). This relation is shown in the scatterplot below for the 2320 students in the study. Surface approaches are associated with lower quality learning outcomes (Section 8.3). As we noted in Section 7.1, over 45% of students think that the workload at Oxford is too heavy. Many may be encouraged by this perception of their environment to adopt reproducing approaches to learning. Similar, but less strong, relations are found between the qualitatively different approaches to learning and all the other variables (Table 8.1).
42
Surface Approach
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Appropriate Workload
Figure 8.2: Scatterplot of Workload scale versus Surface Approach to Learning scale
Students who are more likely to be seeking personal meaning and understanding from their studies (adopting more of a deep approach) experience higher levels of good teaching, more appropriate workloads and assessment, higher levels of collegiality, and more encouragement from their college to pursue their own academic interests. The students who describe adopting approaches focused more on meeting the assessment requirements through memorising rather than understanding (more of a surface approach) experience lower levels of good teaching, less clear goals, less appropriate workloads and assessment, lower levels of collegiality, lower co-ordination between college and department in their course, and less encouragement from their college to pursue their own academic interests.
Table 8.I: Relations (correlation co-efficients*) between students perceptions of their learning context and their learning approach Approach to learning Deep Surface Approach Approach .43 .24 .11 .25 .27 .22 .34 .69 .33 .35 .23 .22
Perceptions of environment Good Teaching Scale Appropriate Workload Scale Clear Goals and Standards Scale Appropriate Assessment Scale Collegiality Scale Independence in learning (Item 8)
Coherence of course (Item 55) .09 .24 * Correlation co-efficients range from 1.0 to +1.0. A correlation of 0.69 is shown in the scatterplot above. In a correlation of 1.0 all the points would lie on the diagonal line. In a correlation of 0.0 the points would form a filled circle. n 2320. With this population, all correlations are statistically significant (p<.001). We have taken correlations of around 0.20 to be indicating a small, but meaningful effect size, and around 0.5 a large effect size. Meaningful effect sizes are shown in bold red.
43
All but two of these relations have meaningful effect sizes, with those for good teaching and appropriate workload being the most significant. 8.2 Relations between students conceptions of learning, their learning motivation and their approaches to learning We explored how students self-efficacy, their learning motivation and their conceptions of learning were related to their approaches to learning. Students who are more likely to be seeking personal meaning and understanding from their studies (adopting more of a deep approach) report higher intellectual stimulation and motivation, are more confident of their own ability to achieve their academic goals, and have a conception of learning that is more aligned with that promoted by the university. Where students describe lower motivation, less confidence in their own ability to achieve their academic goals, and are more likely to be working with a conception of learning that is less aligned with the universitys goals, they are more likely to be adopting a surface approach to learning. These correlations are all in the medium to high range as shown in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2: Relations (correlation co-efficients*) between students motivation and learning conceptions and their learning approach Approach to learning Deep Surface Approach Approach .55 .46 .49 .50 .38 .59
Motivation & conceptions Motivation Scale Conceptions of Learning Scale Self-efficacy Scale * see Table 8.1; n 2320
8.3 Relations between students approaches to learning and their outcomes of learning and course satisfaction We explored how students learning outcomes and course satisfaction were related to their approaches to learning. The results are shown in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3: Relations (effect size on comparison of means* and correlation co-efficients) between students approaches to learning and the outcomes of learning and course satisfaction Outcomes of learning Final Honour Key Skills Schools ** large small Satisfaction College Course .18 .29
Approach to learning Deep approach
Surface approach large small .31 .46 * Scale means are calculated for each category of outcome variable. Effect sizes are calculated as (difference in means/standard deviation). Small effect sizes are >0.20, medium >0.45, large>0.70 **n 2320 except Final Honour Schools where n = 428
44
When students have a higher score on the surface approach scale, they describe being less satisfied with the quality of their course (.46) and the contribution by their college to it (.31). Students with a higher deep approach score describe being more satisfied with the quality of their course (.29). Students approaches to learning are correlated in the range 0.3-0.4 with the development of four of the seven key skills positive correlations with a deep approach and negative correlations with a surface approach. Students who have a higher deep approach score, and a lower surface approach score, are more likely to say that they have improved their written and oral communication, their analytical skills, and their confidence in tackling unfamiliar problems. As with most studies of this sort conducted in other contexts, there is a very strong relation between approach to learning and learning outcomes that measure student understanding. A comparison of means analysis shows that when students achieve a First Class Honours Final Honour Schools result, they have a mean deep approach score of 3.81 compared with 3.21 for Pass/Third Class Honours and 3.41 for Second Class Honours Division 2. Similar, but opposite, relations are found between surface approaches to learning and outcome as shown in the following bar graphs.
Degree Class by Deep Approach Scale
Class I Class II Div 1 Class II Div 2 Class III/Pass 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4
Degree Class by Surface Approach Scale

Mean of DA (Scale 1-5)
Mean of SA (Scale 1-5)
8.4 Relations between student characteristics and students perceptions of their learning environment We examined the relations between students characteristics (gender, year of study and previous schooling) and their perceptions of their context (as measured by the Appropriate Assessment, Appropriate Workload, Good Teaching, Clear Goals and Collegiality scales, and items that examined the extent to which they felt encouraged to develop their own academic interests (item 8), and their perception of the level of coherence between their college and department (item 55)). The results are shown in Table 8.4.
45
Table 8.4: Relations (effect size on comparison of means*) between students characteristics (gender, previous schooling and year of study and their perceptions of their learning context Student characteristics Gender Year Schooling none none none none none none none none none none none none none small small none none none none none none
Perceptions of environment Good Teaching Scale Appropriate Workload Scale Clear Goals and Standards Scale Appropriate Assessment Scale Collegiality Scale Independence in learning (Item 8) Coherence of course (Item 55) * See Table 8.3; n 2320
First year students, compared to third year students, felt more encouraged to develop their own academic interests (a mean of 3.50 compared to a mean of 3.31) and perceived more coherence between their college and department (a mean of 3.77 compared to a mean of 3.57). The effect sizes of these differences are small. No other relations were found to be significant, which suggests that the gender gap found in Finals results does not have its origin in students perceptions of the aspects of their learning environment that were examined in this study. Oxford students report spending on average, 34 hours per week on academic study, with a standard deviation of 12 hours per week, but there is no correlation between this range of hours worked and any of the perceptions of the learning environment scales. 8.5 Relations between student characteristics and their motivation and conceptions We examined the relations between students characteristics (gender, year of study, and previous schooling) and their motivation and conceptions (as measured by the Selfefficacy, Motivation and Conceptions of Learning scales). The results are shown in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5: Relations (effect size on comparison of means*) between students characteristics and their learning motivations and conceptions Student characteristics Gender Year Schooling none none none medium none none none none none
Motivation & Conceptions Motivation Scale Self-efficacy Scale Conceptions of Learning Scale * See Table 8.3; n 2320
46
A relation, with a medium effect size, was found between students gender and their levels of self-efficacy, with male students having higher levels of self-efficacy than female students (a mean of 3.67 compared to a mean of 3.36). The differences between the selfefficacy of male and female students was similar in each of the divisions. This suggests that male students are more confident in their abilities to do well on their degree courses than female students. These findings are in line with those reported by Mellanby et al. (2000), who found that female students had lower self-esteem than male students. This difference could be related to a number of factors. There may be an element of a selffulfilling prophecy here, such that male students beliefs that they will do better leads to them performing better than female students. It might be that male students confidence is reflected in the way they write in Final Honour Schools and this is something that is rewarded by examiners, as found at Cambridge [Section 3.5], or it may be related to other factors in the environment that were not examined within this survey. The conclusion from these findings is that the valuable work that is already taking place within the University to investigate the gender gap in Final Honour Schools should continue in order to shed further light on factors that might explain the difference in performance of male and female students. No other significant or meaningful relations were found, including between hours worked and the three motivation and conceptions scales. 8.6 Relations between course context and students perceptions of their learning environment We examined the relations between the course context (percentage of tutorials outside of college, percentage of tutorials given by graduate students, size of tutorials, and division) and students perceptions of their context (as measured by the Appropriate Assessment, Appropriate Workload, Good Teaching, Clear Goals and Collegiality scales, and items that examined the extent to which they felt encouraged to develop their own academic interests (item 8), and their perception of the level of coherence between their college and department (item 55)). The results are shown in Table 8.6. Students who had over 50% of their tutorials outside their college (about a quarter of the sample), when compared to students who had all of their tutorials inside of college (also about a quarter of the sample), perceived their teaching as less good (a mean of 3.38 compared to a mean of 3.53), perceived the goals of their courses as less clear (3.17 compared to 3.37), perceived their assessment as less appropriate (3.78 compared to 3.97), perceived they had less encouragement to develop their own academic interests (3.27 compared to 3.46) and less coherence between their college and department ( 3.57 compared to 3.8). All of the effect sizes of these differences are small.
47
Table 8.6: Relations (effect size on comparison of means*) between students perceptions of their learning context and their course context Course context Tutorials outside Graduate tutorials small none small small none small small medium small small small small small none
Perceptions of environment Good Teaching Scale Appropriate Workload Scale Clear Goals and Standards Scale Appropriate Assessment Scale Collegiality Scale Independence in learning (Item 8) Coherence of course (Item 55) * See Table 8.3; n 2320
Division small none small none none small none
Students who had over 50% of their tutorials with graduate students (about 2% of the sample), when compared to students who had no tutorials with graduate students (about half of the sample), perceived that their teaching was less good (a mean of 3.24 compared to a mean of 3.53), that the goals of their courses were less clear (3.06 compared to 3.31), that their workload was less appropriate (2.82 compared to 3.03), that assessment was less appropriate (3.77 compared to 3.92), experienced less collegiality (a mean of 3.60 compared to a mean of 3.76), and perceived they had less encouragement to develop their own academic interests (a mean of 3.07 compared to 3.43). The differences on the Good Teaching scale are of a medium effect size; the effect sizes of all of the other differences are small. These results suggests that where students have a high proportion of tutorials outside of college or with graduate students, they are more likely to experience their environment as being less supportive of their learning. The reasons for these differences would be worth investigating further. In the case of graduate students, three possible reasons for these differences have been identified: that graduate students have insufficient support in learning how to conduct tutorials; that graduate students subject knowledge is not as sophisticated as college fellows; or that having a high proportion of tutorials with graduate students is an indicator that students have tutorials with many different tutors and that this results in them perceiving their environment as less supportive. The last of these reasons may also explain the perceptions of students with a high proportion of tutorials outside of their college. Students in Mathematical and Physical Sciences and Life and Environmental Sciences perceived their teaching as less good than students in the Humanities (means of 3.36 and 3.38 respectively compared to a mean of 3.63). Students in the Life and Environmental Sciences were less clear about the goals of their courses than students in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences (3.17 compared to 3.46). Students in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences perceived that they had less encouragement to develop their own academic interests than students in the Humanities (3.22 compared to 3.56). All of the effect sizes of these differences are small.
48
Whether these differences are to do with inherent differences in the disciplines that are taught by the divisions or are due to environmental factors that could be changed is something that might be worthy of further investigation. 8.7 Relations between course context and students motivation and conceptions We examined the relations between the course context (percentage of tutorials outside of college, percentage of tutorials given by graduate students, size of tutorials, and division) and their motivation and conceptions (as measured by the Self-efficacy, Motivation and Conceptions of Learning scales). The results are shown in Table 8.7.
Table 8.7: Relations (effect size on comparison of means*) between students learning motivations and conceptions and their course context
Course context

Motivation Scale Self-efficacy Scale Conceptions of Learning Scale
Division
medium small large
Tutorials outside
small small small
Graduate tutorials
small small medium
Tutorial group size

none none none
* See Table 8.3; n 2320
Students who had over 50% of their tutorials with graduate students (about 2% of the sample), when compared to students who had no tutorials with graduate students (about half of the sample), had less aligned conceptions of learning (a mean of 3.11 compared to a mean of 3.39), were less motivated (3.88 compared to 4.06), and had lower levels of self-efficacy (3.30 compared to 3.56). The differences on the Conceptions of Learning scale are of a medium effect size and the differences on the other two scales are of a small effect size. These results suggest that where students have a higher proportion of tutorials with graduate students they are more likely to conceive of learning as being about the reproduction of ideas rather than the development of personal meaning, they are likely to feel less motivated by their studies, and to feel less confident in their abilities to do well on the course. The reasons for these differences would be worth investigating further. As indicated in the previous section, three possible reasons for these differences have been identified: that graduate students have insufficient support in learning how to conduct tutorials; that graduate students subject knowledge is not as sophisticated as college fellows; or that having a high proportion of tutorials with graduate students is an indicator that students have tutorials with many different tutors and that this results in them feeling less motivated in their studies, less confident in their ability to do well on their course, and means they perceive learning as being more about the reproduction of ideas than the development of personal meaning. We note here that even though there are perceived differences between the teaching of graduate students and of fellows, both are perceived to be at a high level of quality.
49
Students in Mathematical and Physical Sciences and Medical Sciences had less aligned conceptions of learning than students in the Humanities (means of 2.93 and 2.96 respectively compared to a mean of 3.67). These are large effect size differences. Students in Mathematical and Physical Sciences had lower levels of motivation than students in the Medical Sciences (3.78 compared to 4.23). This is a medium effect size difference. Students in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences had lower self-efficacy than students in the Social Sciences (3.39 compared to 3.60) - a small effect size difference. Whether these differences are related to disciplinary differences and differences in students characteristics or are partly related to differences in students experiences of their learning environment is not clear and is something that is worthy of further investigation. 8.8 Relations between students perceptions of the environment and their outcomes of learning and satisfaction The direct relations between students perceptions of their learning environment and their learning outcomes were also explored. The results are shown in Table 8.8.
Table 8.8: Relations (effect size on comparison of means* and correlation co-efficients) between students perceptions of their learning context and their outcomes of learning and course satisfaction Outcomes of learning Final Honour Key Skills Schools** large med-large large medium small small small none none none small small none Satisfaction College Course .56 .26 .37 .26 .38 .39 .36 .50 .34 .35 .30 .36 .32 .41
Perceptions of environment Good Teaching Scale Appropriate Workload Scale Clear Goals and Standards Scale Appropriate Assessment Scale Collegiality Scale Independence in learning (Item 8)
Coherence of course (Item 55) small * See Tables 8.1 and 8.3 **n 2320 except Final Honour Schools where n = 428
There are significant and meaningful correlations between students satisfaction with the quality of their course and their colleges contribution to it and their perceptions of all the learning environment variables used in this study. When students experience a supportive environment, they say they are more satisfied with their courses and colleges. Attainment of key skills is correlated with only some of the environment variables. Perceptions of good teaching is related to enhanced attainment of work planning, of written and oral communication skills, of sharpened analytical skills and confidence in
50
tackling unfamiliar problems. When students experience a supportive college environment, they described enhanced development of these skills as well as the ability to work in a group. Perceptions of a coherent course, and encouragement to develop ones own academic interests are also found to be related to higher levels of satisfaction with the quality of courses and college contribution. There are significant relations between all the perceptions of the environment scales and Final Honour Schools results. Two examples are shown below.
Degree Class by Good Teaching Scale
Degree Class by Workload Scale

Class I Class II Div 1 Class II Div 2 Class III/Pass 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Mean of GTS (Scale 1-5)
Mean of AWS (Scale 1-5)
Students who experience good teaching and appropriate workloads are more likely to achieve First Class Honours or Second Class Honours Division 1 results. 8.9 Relations between students motivation and conceptions and their outcomes of learning We examined the relations between students motivation, their conceptions of learning and their self-efficacy and their outcomes of their learning and course satisfaction. The results are shown in Table 8.9.
Table 8.9: Relations (effect size on comparison of means*) between students learning motivation and conception and their outcomes of learning and course satisfaction Outcomes of learning Final Honour Key Skills Schools ** large large small small Satisfaction College Course small small small medium small small
Motivation & Conceptions Motivation Scale Self-efficacy Scale
Conceptions of Learning Scale med-large small * See Table 8.3 **n 2320 except Final Honour Schools where n = 428
51
Students who say they are more motivated, more confident of their own ability, and conceive of learning in ways consistent with the learning objectives described by the University are more likely to be satisfied with the quality of their course and the contribution to their course from their college. They are also more likely to say they will develop written and oral communication skills, sharpen their analytical skills and feel more confident about tackling unfamiliar problems. Motivation, self-efficacy and conceptions of learning are not strongly correlated with developing problem solving skills, working as part of a group or developing the ability to plan ones own work. There are very strong relations between degree results and all three Motivation & Conceptions scales. Two of them are shown in the bar charts below.
Degree Class by Motivation Scale
Class I Class II Div 1 Class II Div 2 Class III/Pass 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Degree Class by Conception of Learning

Class I Class II Div 1 Class II Div 2 Class III/Pass 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5
Mean of Motivation (Scale 1-5)
Mean of Learning Conception (Scale 1-5)
Motivation in learning has consistently been shown to be related to outcomes of learning. More motivated students have higher quality learning outcomes. This is also true at Oxford and supports the efforts being made to increase student motivation. As the results above show, the pattern of relations between students conceptions of learning and their outcomes of learning is similar to that for motivation. The strength of this set of relations suggests that at least equal consideration might usefully be given to enhancing students conceptions of learning. 8.10 Relations between student characteristics and their outcomes of learning We examined the relations between students gender, schooling and year of study and their degree result, their course satisfaction and key skills development. The results are shown in Table 8.10. There is variation in students achievement of key skills across the different years of study. This is in the direction expected, with increasing attainment as students spend more time in their studies engaged in different teaching and learning activities. The biggest changes over the four years are in three areas an increase in the development of problem solving skills, a sharpening of analytical skills, and feeling more confident about tackling unfamiliar problems.
52
Table 8.10: Relations (effect size on comparison of means*) between students characteristics and their outcomes of learning and course satisfaction Outcomes of learning Final Honour Key Skills Schools ** small none small none Satisfaction College Course none none none none none none
Student characteristics Gender Schooling
Year of Study small * See Table 8.3 **n 2320 except Final Honour Schools where n = 428
As with the results of studies done previously at Oxford and Cambridge, a gender gap is found in Final Honour Schools results. The distribution of results by gender in our sample is as follows:
Gender Final Honour Schools Result Class I Class II Division 1 Class II Division 2 Class III/Pass n = 428 Female 51 138 19 0 Male 74 127 15 4
There are small effect size differences between the genders on only two of the seven key skills items. Females score more highly on the development of written skills, and lower on the development of problem solving skills.
8.11 Relations between course context and students outcomes of learning We examined the relations between students division, tutorial group size, percentages of tutorials given by graduates and percentage of tutorials held outside of college and their degree result, their course satisfaction and key skills development. The relations between course/division and Final Honour Schools result are normally published elsewhere in the University and are not included in this report. The other results are shown in Table 8.11. There are medium effect size differences between divisions on key skills attainment that reflect the disciplinary differences between divisions. Students in Mathematical and Physical Sciences report the highest attainment of development of problem solving skills, and of working in a group, but the lowest in written communication, oral communication and the development of analytical skills. There are no differences between divisions on the other key skills items.
53
Table 8.11: Relations (effect size on comparison of means*) between course context and students outcomes of learning and course satisfaction Outcomes of learning Final Honour Key Skills Schools ** medium small none small medium none Satisfaction College Course small medium small none small none none none
Course context Division Percentage outside tutorials Percentage graduate tutorials
Size of tutorial groups none * See Table 8.3 **n 2320 except Final Honour Schools where n = 428
The Commission of Inquiry Report (1997a) noted that:

70% of science students felt that they had gained team work skills compared to 40% of arts and social science students; whereas 90% of arts and social science students felt they were gaining written communication skills compared to 44% of science students.
This has changed: around 50% of science students felt that they had gained group work skills compared to 25% of arts and social science students; whereas 80% of arts and social science students felt they were gaining written communication skills compared to 35% of Mathematical and Physical Sciences students and 75% of students in Medical Sciences and Life and Environmental Sciences. Students in the sciences (Life and Environmental Sciences and Mathematical and Physical Sciences) are the least satisfied with the quality of the contribution to their course from their college. Where students have more than 50% of tutorials outside college or more than 50% of tutorials are given to them by graduate students, they are significantly less satisfied with the quality of the contribution by their college to their course, but no less satisfied with the quality of their degree course. Students who have more tutorials outside college felt they have had more help in improving skills in written communication. None of the other key skills were found to be related to the percentages of tutorials students had outside college. Students who have more tutorials with graduate students felt they have had less help in improving skills in both oral and written communication and they reported not feeling as confident about tackling unfamiliar problems. None of the other key skills were found to be related to the percentages of tutorials students had with graduate students. The size of tutorial/class group is not related to any of the outcome/satisfaction indicators. There are small effect size differences in the Final Honour Schools results for students who have varying percentages of tutorials outside of their college. Of the students who
54
have no tutorials outside college, 39% achieve First Class Honours, whereas of those who have 50% or more of their tutorials outside, 24% achieve First Class Honours.
9.0 Differences between colleges

A combination of the students previous experience and what it is that colleges offer them is seen to be what lies behind differences between colleges in the rank ordering presented in the Norrington Table (A rank order of colleges by Final Honour Schools results). This is effectively a combination of the two sets of relations described in 8.10 and 8.11 or the paths at the top and bottom of our study model. The paths through the centre of the model described by the relations in 8.1 8.9 constitute an additional way of rank ordering colleges. By focusing more on motivation, conceptions, perceptions and approaches, a series of rankings based less on student characteristics and more on the value-added by each college is generated. A rank order of the colleges that participated in this study, based on scores on the unaggregated central path variables show, as with the Norrington Table, very small effect size differences, but the rank order differs from the Norrington Table ranking.
10.0 Conclusions
While the students entering Oxford would appear, on the basis of A-level results, to be a homogenous group, there is variation in their prior experiences that accounts for some of the differences in their learning outcomes. There is little the University can do about this. However, this study shows that there is also variation in the ways that this relatively homogeneous group of undergraduates perceive their learning environment, which is also related to their learning outcomes. This suggests that changing the perceptions of the learning environment of the lower achieving students may help to improve the quality of their learning. For example, the higher achieving students experience aspects of their teaching as being more supportive, which may suggest that addressing issues such as giving helpful feedback, and understanding student difficulties, may help to improve the learning of lower achieving students. Similar sets of relations are found for students conception of learning, with conceptions of learning of the higher achieving students being more aligned with those espoused by the University. This suggests that lower achieving students may benefit from discussions about what conceptions of learning are appropriate for studying at Oxford. These actions may prove to be of benefit, but it is our conclusion that changes made with the aim of improving student learning are more likely to be successful using a more holistic, overall approach. We have reached this conclusion from the consistency of the directions and magnitudes of the relations found between the variables used to model the student learning environment. Higher quality learning outcomes are associated with a range of perceptions and motivations that are, in turn, associated with ways of thinking
55
about learning. No one small change to perceptions of workload or of teaching are likely to have a substantial effect, but an overall approach underpinned by an awareness of conceptions of learning of Oxfords teachers and students, may enable the learning of all students to be improved. This holistic approach is similar to that advocated by Biggs (1999) in the idea of constructive alignment: A system in which teaching methods, assessment and learning objectives are aligned so that all aspects of this system are in accord in supporting appropriate student learning. Alignment in course design is not new, but what is new is Biggs idea of alignment with the focus on the qualitative variation in student learning. From what we have found in this study, including qualitative variation in student learning, we see this alignment being extended to include an awareness of conceptions of learning being adopted in the design of teaching and during a students study, as well as the motivation and perceptions elements in Biggs 3P model.
11.0 Acknowledgements and References

We thank Joanna Buddery, Rachel Johnson and the students, staff and fellows of the seventeen colleges who participated in the study. The study was funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England through the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund. Some aspects of this work have already been published or presented at conferences. Reports on the initial findings from data for each college were distributed to the participating college in Trinity Term 2003. Further information on and from this study, is available from the Institute for the Advancement of University Learning (harriet.dunbargoddet@learning.ox.ac.uk). However, information on or about a specific college will only be released to members of that college. References Ashwin, P. (2003). Variation in Students Experiences of Small Group Tutorials. Improving Student Learning, 10 251-256. Ashwin, P. (2003). Variation in Tutors Experiences of Small Group Tutorials. Paper presented at the 11th International Improving Student Learning Symposium, Hinckley, September. Batty, C. (1994). How do Undergraduates Learn Mathematics? A guide to studying mathematics at Oxford. University of Oxford. Biggs, J.B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12, 73-85. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Board of Faculty of Physiological Sciences (1999). Guidance for lecturers in regards to teaching and associated duties, University of Oxford http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/medsch/administration/PSB handbook.doc. Commission of Inquiry (1997a). Commission of Inquiry Report. Oxford: University of Oxford. Commission of Inquiry (1997b). Supplementary Volume. Oxford: University of Oxford.
56
Coopers and Lybrand (1996). University of Oxford: Governance. London: Coopers and Lybrand. Davies, B. & Harr R. (1989). Explaining the Oxbridge figures. Oxford Review of Education 15(3) 221-225. Dover, K. (1982) Undergraduate studies: motives and expectations. Oxford Review of Education 8(3) 243-247. Education Policy and Standards Committee (EPSC) (2003). Learning and Teaching in the Collegiate University: Teaching Norms and Subject Families, University of Oxford. Faculty Board of English (1996). Good Teaching Practice. University of Oxford. Goodhart, C.B. (1988) Women and men, Oxford Magazine, Noughth Week, Michaelmas Term, page 8. Jaworski, B. (2000). Collaborating with Mathematics Tutors to Explore Undergraduate Teaching. Paper to be presented at Economic and Social Research Council Teaching and Learning Research Programme Conference. Jaworski, B., Nardi, E. & Hegedus, S. (1999). Characterizing Mathematics Teaching - a collaboration between educators and mathematicians: A methodological perspective. Paper presented at the British Education Research Association Conference, Brighton, September 1999. The Joint Committee on Academic Performance (2003). Indicators of Academic Performance, Cambridge University Reporter 59,13, 15-39. http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2002-03/weekly/5913/6.html Kiosses, S. (1997). Teaching and Studying Ancient Greek Literature: A first approach to a case study. University of Oxford: unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K. and Simons, R. (2002). University students perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes, Studies in Higher Education, 27, 27-52 Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McCrum, N.G. (1994). The academic gender deficit at Oxford and Cambridge. Oxford Review of Education 20(1) 3 26. McCrum, N.G. (1996). Gender inequality at Oxford and Cambridge Universities. Oxford Review of Education 22(4) 369 397. McCrum, N.G. (1998). Gender and social inequality at Oxbridge: measures and remedies Oxford Review of Education 24(3) 261 277. Mellanby, J., Martin, M., & ODoherty, J. (2000). The gender gap in final examination results at Oxford University. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 377 390. Mellanby, J. & Stein, J. (2000). Admissions: a test without bias. Oxford Magazine, Eighth Week, Trinity Term, 4-5. Moore, W.G. (1968). The Tutorial System and Its Future. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Oxford University Students Union Academic Affairs Committee (1998). Response to the North Commission of Inquiry. Oxford University Students Union. Palfreyman, D. (ed) (2001). The Oxford Tutorial: Thanks, you taught me how to think. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F. & McKeachie, W.J. (1989). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Centre for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The experience in Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129-150. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: FalmerRoutledge. Ramsden, P., Beswick, D.G. & Bowden, J.A. (1986) Effects of learning skills interventions on first year university students learning. Human Learning, 5, 151-164.
57
Rouverol, W.S. (1955). The tutorial system. Journal of Higher Education 26(1) 1-9 + 5556. Sabri, D. (2000). Approaches to tutorial teaching. Appendix to S. Shale Understanding the learning process: tutorial teaching in the context of research into learning in higher education. University of Oxford: Institute for the Advancement of University Learning. Sell, L. & Robson, P. (1998). Perceptions of college life, emotional well-being and patterns of drug and alcohol use among Oxford undergraduates, Oxford Review of Education 24 (2) 235 243. Shale, S. (2000). Understanding the learning process: tutorial teaching in the context of research into learning in higher education. University of Oxford: Institute for the Advancement of University Learning. Spear, M. (1997). Review of Final Honour Schools Class Percentage Figures. University of Oxford: Department for Educational Studies. Spurling, A. (1990). Report of the Women in Higher Education Research Project 1988-90. Kings College, Cambridge. Tapper, E. & Palfreyman, D. (2000). Oxford and the Decline of the Collegiate Tradition. London: Woburn Press. Trigwell, K. & Ashwin, P. (2002). Evoked Conceptions of Learning and Learning Environments. Paper presented at the 10th International Improving Student Learning Symposium, Brussels, September. Vice-Chancellors Working Party on Access (1999). Report of the Vice-Chancellors Working Party on Access. Oxford: University of Oxford. University of Oxford (2001). Corporate Plan. Oxford: University of Oxford, July. University of Oxford (2003). Quality Assurance Agency Institutional Audit: Self Evaluation Document. Oxford: University of Oxford. Watts, M. (2002). Everything that I am, Oxbridge is the opposite: The final report of the Oxbridge Access Improvement for the Maintained Sector (AIMS) Project. Sutton Trust, London.
Dr Keith Trigwell and Dr Paul Ashwin Institute for the Advancement of University Learning November 2003
58
Annexe I: Frequencies and means of questionnaire item responses

Social Sciences % Division 2227 19.0 Humanities % 35.7 Maths and Physical Sciences % 27.4 Medical Sciences % 7.9 Life and Environmental Sciences % 10.1
1st %
2nd %
3rd %
4th %
More than 4 %
Year of Study
2321
36.0
28.7
26.6
8.5
0.2
Female % 48.3
Male % 51.7
Gender
2322
N Type of school/college attended whilst studying for A levels
State %
Private/Independent %
Other %
N/A %
2284
45.9
48.8
3.2
2.1
N Type of school/college attended before studying for A levels
State %
Private/Independent %
Other %
N/A %
2284
46.9
47.5
3.6
2.0
Visiting Undergraduate % 0.7
Undergraduate % 98.8
Other % 0.5
Student Status
2327
College Accommodation % 87.1
Private Accommodation % 12.6
Other % 0.3
Current Residence
2324
N Percentage of tutorials/classes involving: 1 2 students 6 or more students 2291 2294
Mean 58.16 22.90
S.D. 34.21 31.93
59
N Percentage of tutorials outside of college
0% %
25% %
50% %
75% %
100% %
2287
24.6
30.0
22.4
15.1
7.9
N Percentage of tutorials given by graduate students
0% %
25% %
50% %
75% %
100% %
2110
52.0
35.3
10.6
1.6
0.5
N Average number of hours engaged in academic work per week 2249
Mean 34.35
S.D. 11.83
Item
Mean
S.D.
Disagree Strongly % 0.7 17.5 0.6 1.9 2.4 1.1 2.2 2.1 11.1 0.7
Disagree % 1.5 52.0 7.5 10.8 11.7 7.4 8.2 14.1 41.6 2.0
Neutral Agree % 5.3 24.1 22.9 27.5 23.3 19.9 17.3 36.6 22.4 5.6 % 48.4 5.5 50.1 47.8 40.9 46.5 44.7 36.9 21.3 36.8
Agree Strongly % 44.2 1.0 19.1 12.1 21.6 25.1 27.5 10.3 3.6 55.0
1. My degree course is intellectually stimulating 2. Too many tutors have asked me questions just about facts 3. My degree course has developed my problem solving skills 4. My tutors motivate me to do my best work 5. I have made an active contribution to life generally at my college 6. My education has been enhanced by talking to students from other disciplines 7. I think that what I am learning in this course will be useful when I graduate 8. [College X] seems to encourage us to develop our own academic interests as far as possible 9. I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass 10. The tutorial system has enhanced my learning on this degree course 11. My tutors seem more interested in assessing what I have memorised than what I have understood 12. The course has stimulated my interest in the field of study 13. Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books 14. I feel I benefit from being in contact with active researchers/scholars 15. My tutors put a lot of time into commenting (orally and/or in writing) on my work
2323 2312 2323 2318 2323 2328 2325 2321 2326 2322
4.34 0.71 2.20 0.83 3.80 0.85 3.57 0.90 3.68 1.02 3.87 0.91 3.87 0.98 3.39 0.92 2.65 1.05 4.43 0.75
2324
1.87 0.78
31.9
54.0
9.9
3.4
0.8
2326 2323 2323 2323
3.94 0.92 3.67 0.88 3.93 0.90 3.27 1.04
1.9 0.9 0.9 5.2
6.2 10.4 5.9 19.5
15.4 24.0 21.2 28.2
48.8 50.1 43.6 37.8
27.6 14.6 28.5 9.3
60
Item
Mean
S.D.
Disagree Strongly % 11.0 5.7 3.2 1.9 2.6 0.3 7.8 1.5 3.1
Disagree % 56.0 40.8 20.9 5.2 7.4 7.1 26.4 3.3 17.4
Neutral Agree % 21.8 28.4 28.7 14.8 17.5 24.6 29.7 11.6 34.6 % 10.3 22.2 41.4 44.6 44.4 53.3 29.0 51.3 36.1
Agree Strongly % 0.9 2.9 5.7 33.5 28.1 14.8 7.1 32.3 8.9
16. Tutorials are more about testing my knowledge than exploring my personal understanding of the subject 17. I often have trouble in making sense of the things I have to remember 18. The tutors made it clear right from the start what they expect from students 19. I am very interested in the content (subject matter) of my degree 20. Talking with [college X] students from my own discipline has improved my learning 21. When I am reading an article or book, I try to find out for myself exactly what the author means 22. Being at Oxford has helped me develop my ability to work as part of a group 23. I like the subject matter of my degree 24. I'm confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments and/or essays in my degree course 25. In my degree I feel it is more important to find new ways of thinking than it is to gain specific knowledge about the subject areas 26. Being at [college X] has helped me to develop the ability to plan my own work 27. Much of what I am studying makes little sense: it's like unrelated bits and pieces 28. My tutors work hard to make their subjects interesting 29. I think the content of this degree course is useful for me to learn 30. I have usually had a clear idea of where I am going and what is expected of me in this degree course 31. The tutorial system has improved my skills in written communication 32. I see my role in tutorials as being more about discussing ideas than about answering my tutor's questions 33. I feel part of a community of students and tutors committed to learning 34. The tutorial system has helped sharpen my analytic skills 35. There is a lot of unnecessary academic pressure on me as a student at [college X] 36. I am generally given enough time to understand the things I have to learn 37. Often I feel I am drowning in the sheer amount of material I'm having to cope with in my degree 38. I often engage academically with students from other disciplines
2327 2320 2321 2316 2319 2319 2325 2310 2321
2.34 0.84 2.76 0.96 3.25 0.96 4.02 0.93 3.88 0.99 3.75 0.80 3.01 1.07 4.10 0.83 3.30 0.96
2323
3.14 1.01
3.2
25.7
34.1
27.5
9.6
2323 2326 2320 2322
3.71 0.90 1.98 0.86 3.47 0.85 3.82 0.87
1.3 29.5 1.5 1.4
10.1 50.3 11.2 6.9
21.4 13.6 34.7 19.5
50.7 5.7 44.6 53.1
16.5 1.0 8.0 19.0
2323
3.50 0.92
2.4
13.7
24.0
50.9
9.0
2326
3.74 1.04
2.7
11.8
18.5
42.6
24.5
2316
3.44 1.00
3.1
16.0
27.1
41.3
12.5
2327 2318 2324 2323 2321 2325
3.70 0.92 4.08 0.78 2.57 1.04 2.83 1.05 3.24 1.12 3.12 1.11
2.3 0.5 12.7 10.4 5.6 6.1
8.5 3.8 41.7 32.0 23.8 27.9
22.6 12.4 27.4 24.6 24.6 23.3
49.9 53.7 12.7 30.7 33.1 33.2
16.8 29.7 5.5 2.3 12.8 9.6
61
Item
Mean
S.D.
Disagree Strongly % 11.5
Disagree % 32.9
Neutral Agree % 27.4 % 23.3
Agree Strongly % 4.9
39. I'm certain I can understand the most difficult material in my reading lists 40. On balance, I think my degree is presented as being more about synthesis and conceptualisation than about facts, rules and laws 41. It is important for me to learn the material in my degree course 42. It has often been hard to discover what is expected of me in this degree course 43. Being selected to study at Oxford has been a source of motivation for me 44. I'm confident I can learn the basic concepts introduced in this degree 45. Tutorials are more about me showing my tutors how much I have learned in this subject than developing my understanding 46. I have had sufficient access to items on my course reading lists 47. It is always easy to know the standard of work expected at [college X] 48. When I am working on a new topic, I try to see how all the ideas fit together 49. When I read, I examine the details carefully to see how they fit in with what's being said 50. My tutors are extremely good at explaining things 51. Understanding the subject matter of my degree is very important to me 52. I see the tutors' role in tutorials as being more about explaining ideas than about initiating a discussion of them 53. On balance, I think my degree is presented as being more about techniques and procedures than arguments and reasoning 54. To do well in this degree all you really need is a good memory 55. Together, my college and my department/ faculty offer a coherent degree programme 56. I would welcome a move from a tutorial-driven system of teaching towards one with an increased emphasis on classes 57. I often find myself thinking about ideas from my course when I'm doing other things 58. I'm certain I can master the skills being taught in my degree course 59. The tutorial system has improved my oral communication skills 60. I often worry about whether I'll ever be able to cope with the work properly 61. My course stimulates my enthusiasm for further learning
2313
2.77 1.08
2312
3.21 1.06
6.7
18.9
30.5
34.7
9.2
2316 2317 2324 2317
4.17 0.69 2.70 0.97 3.97 0.95 4.33 0.65
0.3 6.6 2.0 0.3
2.2 42.9 7.5 1.2
8.3 27.8 12.5 5.1
58.6 18.8 48.0 51.8
30.7 3.8 30.0 41.6
2317
2.40 0.89
11.6
51.8
23.6
11.3
1.7
2326 2321 2323 2318 2318 2318
3.53 1.07 3.16 0.93 3.84 0.70 3.64 0.77 3.70 0.85 4.24 0.68
4.4 3.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.2
15.9 23.1 4.9 7.8 7.6 1.4
16.6 33.5 18.5 28.7 27.2 8.6
48.0 35.7 63.8 53.8 48.8 54.3
15.1 4.7 12.5 9.2 15.6 35.5
2316
3.00 0.98
3.8
31.0
32.2
27.1
5.9
2323
2.56 1.02
11.5
44.3
24.9
15.1
4.2
2323 2321
2.27 1.13 3.67 0.89
26.7 2.8
41.3 8.6
14.9 18.8
12.3 58.3
4.8 11.5
2321
1.63 0.96
61.3
23.5
8.0
5.5
1.7
2326 2324 2327 2327 2327
3.64 0.98 3.68 0.81 3.80 0.95 3.31 1.13 3.76 0.95
2.3 1.2 1.6 5.7 2.0
13.6 6.6 9.4 22.0 9.0
18.0 26.7 19.9 22.4 21.2
49.7 53.6 45.9 35.9 47.1
16.3 11.8 23.2 14.0 20.7
62
Item
Mean
S.D.
Disagree Strongly % 2.7
Disagree % 21.3
Neutral Agree % 21.8 % 38.2
Agree Strongly % 16.0
62. The sheer volume of work to be got through in this degree means I can't comprehend it all thoroughly 63. My tutors normally give me helpful feedback on my progress 64. Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really worthwhile 65. Since being at Oxford, I feel more confident about tackling unfamiliar problems 66. In my degree I feel it is more important to find new ways of thinking than it is to learn to apply knowledge 67. The tutorial system has inhibited my learning on this degree course 68. My tutors make a real effort to understand difficulties I may be having with my work 69. I feel I belong to a college community 70. The workload given to me at Oxford is too heavy 71. I now wish I had been selected to study at another university 72. Ideas in course books or articles often set me off on long chains of thought of my own 73. I have made an active contribution to University life outside of my college 74. My learning has been enhanced by classes that supplement my tutorials 75. I have had sufficient support in developing the study skills I need to be successful on my degree course 76. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of my degree course 77. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of my college's contribution to my degree course
2322
3.44 1.07
2324 2319 2324
3.43 0.92 2.56 1.10 3.77 0.84
3.1 15.1 1.3
14.9 41.2 6.4
23.6 20.7 22.3
52.3 18.0 54.1
6.1 4.9 16.0
2307
3.00 0.90
2.6
27.6
42.9
21.3
5.6
2322 2317 2324 2321 2325 2320 2323 2293
1.49 0.73 3.43 0.96 4.09 1.02 3.01 1.03 1.61 0.94 3.27 0.97 3.31 1.22 3.17 1.10
62.3 2.5 3.1 5.3 62.4 2.7 6.5 9.3
29.4 15.3 6.4 28.4 21.8 20.9 24.6 18.4
5.9 29.3 10.7 35.3 10.1 31.5 19.3 25.3
2.1 42.3 38.3 22.5 4.1 36.6 30.2 40.2
0.3 10.6 41.6 8.6 1.7 8.3 19.4 6.8
2302
3.17 0.91
4.2
18.6
37.0
36.7
3.6
2326 2321
4.02 0.78 3.89 0.89
1.3 1.9
3.7 6.3
10.4 15.1
61.0 53.9
23.7 22.8
1 or upper 2i % 38.1
st
2i % 50.9
2ii % 8.3
rd
Pass % 1.1
Fail % 0.1
% 0.7
Leave before completing % 0.8
What degree do you expect to get from Oxford
2283
63
Annexe II: Scale means and distributions

Mean scale scores and distributions of response for each scale in ascending mean order (approximately 2320 respondents) Scale Surface Approach Appropriate Workload Clear Goals Conception of Learning Good Teaching Self-efficacy Deep Approach Collegiality Appropriate Assessment Motivation Mean 2.68 2.95 3.30 3.31 3.48 3.52 3.68 3.75 3.88 4.01 SD .67 .84 .74 .60 .67 .69 .61 .57 .69 .70 % Agree* 27.1 42.5 63.2 68.2 74.4 72.8 83.4 88.4 73.9 92.0 % Neutral* 8.4 12.3 10.3 6.1 6.7 10.8 5.1 3.5 7.2 1.9 % Disagree* 64.5 45.3 26.5 25.7 18.9 16.4 11.4 8.0 7.1 6.1
* Agree: Scale scores >3.0; Neutral: Scale score = 3.0; Disagree: Scale scores <3.0
64
Annexe III: Study Methodology

The study was conducted in two phases. The first focused on testing existing instruments (such as the Course Experience Questionnaire, Ramsden 1991) and on identifying those aspects of the Oxford system that vary from the conclusions of previous research. This phase was largely qualitative, and involved research collaboration between college teaching staff and IAUL staff. The second phase made use of the data from the first phase to quantitatively explore relations between learning variables. Junior Common Rooms and Senior Tutors in all colleges were approached to participate in the full study. Ten colleges agreed to participate in Phase 1. Phase I This phase involved a questionnaire, focus group and interview study to establish what aspects of the University of Oxford context might be similar or different to the contexts of previous studies of this type. Focus groups discussions were held with students (in groups of 5-8) in 10 colleges. Interviews were conducted with 28 students using focus group and previous research material to develop trigger questions. Trials of the Questionnaire were conducted in Trinity Term of 2001 and 2002 with all students in one Oxford college to test items, scales and methods of administration. Support for, and contributions to the survey were requested and granted from the Junior Common Room president and the Senior Tutor. Percentages of returned questionnaires were 31% and 35%. The trials were considered a success. Phase II September 2001 - August 2003 A questionnaire (Annexe VI) was developed from the Phase 1 material and in weeks 3 and 4 of Hilary Term 2003, it was mailed to undergraduate students at the 17 participating colleges of the University of Oxford. A total of 2330 students (42%) returned the questionnaire to boxes in their Porters Lodges. At the students request, no follow-up contacts to improve return rates were conducted. The data were analysed using SPSS. The aim of this survey was to give students a chance to comment on their experience at Oxford. Students who were known to have left, either temporarily or permanently were not included in the analyses. While the response rate is lower than desirable for generalisations to be made about the whole student population, it does capture the views of those who wished to comment upon their experience and represents the largest survey of this kind to be conducted with Oxford undergraduates. Some demographic details of respondents are shown in Annexe I. Broad comparisons with an estimate of the total population are shown below
This study Number Arts Science (%) Gender (%) Female Male 2330 53.8 46.2 48.3 51.7 Total 5550 58.0 42.0 47.0 53.0
65
All of the respondents to the survey questionnaire were asked to anticipate their final degree result. In November 2003, we were given access to the anonymised final results of 422 of these students who were in their final year. The table below shows the comparison between these students predicted result and their actual result. It should be noted that in the questionnaire we used 1st or upper 2i as the highest category to try to ensure that students did not under estimate their performance.
1st 96 26 1 0 Actual Outcome 2i 2ii 81 6 167 14 12 11 2 3 3rd or pass 0 0 2 1
Predicted outcome
1 or upper 2i 2i 2ii 3rd or pass
st
The table shows that the 422 students were reasonably good at predicting their actual outcome (Somersd =. 451, n= 422, p<0.01), with 275 predicting accurately and all but nine predicting within one classification level. Eighty-one of the students who predicted a 1st or upper 2i achieved a 2i, suggesting that it may have been better to have a clear distinction between First Class Honours and high Second Class Honours Division 1 in the choice offered to predicting students. The scales used in the analysis were constituted from a Principal Components Factor Analysis using Varimax rotation. Items in each scale and scale reliabilities are given in Annexe V. A cluster analysis was used to confirm the validity of the model (Section 6.2 and Annexe IV). Ward's method of hierarchical analysis was used to look at relations, for individual students. Selection of the reported cluster solution was based on the increasing value of the Squared Euclidean Distance between clusters. The cluster analysis was followed by between-group contrasts (of scale means and z-scores) using cluster membership to form the groups. Issues of ethnicity and learning were not addressed in this study because of difficulties in matching databases.
66
Annexe IV: Model validity Cluster analysis

Mean (and standard deviations) cluster scale z-scores for Motivation and Conception of learning scales, perceptions of learning environment, and approaches to learning variables, with Final Honour Schools degree classification result by cluster. Variable n Conception of learning Motivation Self-efficacy Good Teaching Scale Clear Goals Scale Appropriate Workload Scale Appropriate Assessment Scale Collegiality Scale Surface approach to learning Deep approach to learning 1 246 .40 (.83) .22 (.86) .45 (.67) .42 (.77) .28 (.87) .43 (.79) .44 (.78) .29 (.87) -.51 (.78) .45 (.76) Cluster 2 182 -.54 (.96) -.61 (1.05) -.59 (1.00) -.57 (.99) -.38 (1.04) -.59 (.96) -.59 (.97) -.39 (1.04) .69 (.84) -.61 (.96) 37 116 25 4
Final Honour Schools Degree classification (number of students) Honour Class I 88 Honour Class II Division 1 149 Honour Class II Division 2 9 Honour Class III/Pass 0
All mean differences between clusters are statistically significant at p < .001
A cluster analysis is calculated using all ten scales to determine cluster occupancy, which maximises the differences between clusters. In this case all variables separate statistically differently between clusters. The pattern of variables in each cluster then indicates the relations, for that group of students, between the variables. In both clusters the patterns are as predicted by the model used to inform the study, and as indicated in scale descriptors (Section 6.1). Higher scores on conceptions of learning, motivation, selfefficacy and all the perceptions of the learning environment scales, are found in the same cluster as higher scores on a deep approach to learning, and lower scores on a surface approach to learning. The students in this cluster have higher quality achievement as indicated by their degree classifications. The reverse pattern is found for cluster 2 with higher scores on the surface approach scale being associated with lower scores on all other variables and a lower level of academic achievement.
67
Annexe V: Scale and group items and reliabilities (Cronbach alpha)

Motivation (alpha=0.86) 1. My degree course is intellectually stimulating 7. I think that what I am learning in this course will be useful when I graduate 12. The course has stimulated my interest in the field of study 19. I am very interested in the content (subject matter) of my degree 23. I like the subject matter of my degree 29. I think the content of this degree course is useful for me to learn 51. Understanding the subject matter of my degree is very important to me 61. My course stimulates my enthusiasm for further learning Self-efficacy (alpha=0.78) 24. Im confident I can do an excellent job on the assignments and/or essays in my degree course 39. Im certain I can understand the most difficult material in my reading lists 44. Im confident I can learn the basic concepts introduced in this degree 58. Im certain I can master the skills being taught in my degree course Conceptions of learning (evoked prior experience of learning) (alpha=0.77) 16. Tutorials are more about me testing my knowledge than exploring my personal understanding of the subject 25. In my degree I feel it is more important to find new ways of thinking than it is to gain specific knowledge about the subject areas 32. I see my role in tutorials as being more about discussing ideas than about answering my tutors questions 40. On balance, I think my degree is presented as being more about synthesis and conceptualisation than about facts, rules and laws 45. Tutorials are more about me showing my tutors how much I have learned in this subject than developing my understanding 52. I see the tutors role in tutorials as being more about explaining ideas than about initiating a discussion of them 53. On balance, I think my degree is presented as being more about techniques and procedures than arguments and reasoning 66. In my degree I feel it is more important to find new ways of thinking than it is to learn to apply knowledge Good teaching (perceptions) (alpha=0.83) 4. My tutors motivate me to do my best work 15. My tutors put a lot of time into commenting (orally and/or in writing) on my work 28. My tutors work hard to make their subjects interesting 50. My tutors are extremely good at explaining things 63. My tutors normally give me helpful feedback on my progress 68. My tutors make a real effort to understand difficulties I may be having with my work Clear goals and standards (perceptions) (alpha=0.79) 18. The tutors made it clear right from the start what they expect from students 30. I have usually had a clear idea of where I am going and what is expected of me in this degree course 42. It has often been hard to discover what is expected of me in this degree course 47. It is always easy to know the standard of work expected at College X Appropriate assessment (perceptions) (alpha=0.60) 2. Too many tutors have asked me questions just about facts 11. My tutors seem more interested in assessing what I have memorised than what I have understood 54. To do well in this degree all you really need is a good memory Appropriate workload (perceptions) (alpha=0.81) 35. There is a lot of unwanted academic pressure on me as a student at College X
68
36. I am generally given enough time to understand the things I have to learn 62. The sheer volume of work to be got through in this degree means I cant comprehend it all thoroughly 70. The workload given to me at Oxford is too heavy Deep approach (approach to learning) (alpha=0.76) 13. Often I find myself questioning things I hear in lectures or read in books 21. When I am reading an article or book, I try to find out for myself exactly what the author means 48. When I am working on a new topic, I try to see how all the ideas fit together 49. When I read, I examine the details carefully to see how they fit in with whats being said 57. I often find myself thinking about ideas from my course when Im doing other things 72. Ideas in course books or articles often set me off on long chains of thought of my own Surface approach (approach to learning) (alpha=0.73) 9. I concentrate on learning just those bits of information I have to know to pass 17. I often have trouble in making sense of the things I have to remember 27. Much of what I am studying makes little sense: its like unrelated bits and pieces 37. Often I feel I am drowning in the sheer amount of material Im having to cope with in my degree 60. I often worry about whether Ill ever be able to cope with the work properly 64. Often I find myself wondering whether the work I am doing here is really worthwhile Collegiality (perceptions) (alpha=0.67) 5. I have made an active contribution to life generally at my college 6. My education has been enhanced by talking to students from other disciplines 14. I feel I benefit from being in contact with active researchers/scholars 20. Talking with College X students from my own discipline has improved my learning 33. I feel part of a community of students and tutors committed to learning 38. I often engage academically with students from other disciplines 69. I feel I belong to a college community Independence in learning/Syllabus bound (perceptions) 8. College X seems to encourage us to develop our own academic interests as far as possible Coherence (perceptions) 55. Together, my college and my department/faculty offer a coherent degree programme Key skills (outcomes of learning) 3. My degree course has developed my problem solving skills 22. Being at Oxford has helped me develop my ability to work as part of a group 26. Being at College X has helped me to develop the ability to plan my own work 31. The tutorial system has improved my skills in written communication 34. The tutorial system has helped sharpen my analytic skills 59. The tutorial system has improved my oral communication skills 65. Since being at Oxford, I feel more confident about tackling unfamiliar problems Tutorials (perceptions) 10. The tutorial system has enhanced my learning on this degree course 45. Tutorials are more about me showing my tutors how much I have learned in this subject than developing my understanding 56. I would welcome a move from a tutorial-driven system of teaching towards one based more on classes 67. The tutorial system has inhibited my learning on this degree course 74. My learning has been enhanced by classes that supplement my tutorials Overview (outcomes of learning) 76. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of my degree course 77. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of College Xs contribution to my degree course
69
Annexe VI: Study Questionnaire
70
71
72
73

OLCPFinal

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

OLCPFinal

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Keith Trigwell Paul Ashwin

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford Contents Page

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Student characteristics Motivation & Conceptions Approach to learning Outcomes of learning

Perceptions of environment Course context

Figure 1.1 Adapted 3P (presage-process-product) model of student learning

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Degree Class by Deep Approach Scale

Mean of Motivation (Scale 1-5)

Mean of DA (Scale 1-5)

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Degree Class by Conception of Learning

Mean of GTS (Scale 1-5)

Mean of Learning Conception (Scale 1-5)

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

4.0 Qualitative differences in experience of tutorials

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

5.0 Qualitative differences in students experience of collegiality

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

6.0 The model of learning used to inform the study

Presage Student characteristics

Motivation & Conceptions

Figure 6.1: Adapted 3P model of student learning

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Institute for the Advancement of University Learning

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

7.0 Students response to items and scales

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford

Undergraduate Students Experience of Learning at the University of Oxford