Understanding and enhancing learning communities in tertiary education in science and engineering

1. Introduction

The impetus for this project grew out of our involvement in tertiary teaching in science and engineering courses. Our own experiences in undergraduate and graduate science papers, and preservice science and technology education papers, had led us to debate the learning experiences of our students. We intuitively felt that there was something lacking in those experiences and wondered about the sense of identity that these students developed through their involvement in these papers. Research by one of the project’s team members (Eames & Bell, 2005) indicated that the learning environment in science and engineering in a university setting was quite different to that experienced in a science and engineering workplace. So what sort of identity were these students developing? Our own anecdotal evidence pointed to a view of something disconnected from the world of science and engineering as practiced in the working community. Our students operated in a mechanistic way of collecting knowledge to pass examinations, doing what was necessary to gain a qualification without developing a sense of the culture of doing science or engineering. We were also aware that, although there was a large body of research literature on the subject of student learning in science at primary and secondary education levels, little existed at tertiary level. There was a feeling that the learning community that operated at tertiary level might be different from that found in schools, and hence create different opportunities and challenges for students within the community. Our study, then, aimed to contribute to an understanding of the nature of learning communities in tertiary science and engineering and how they work, to enhance teaching and student achievement.

Rationale

Further to our own experiences, a number of national and international imperatives led to this study. In recent years, increasing focus, both nationally and internationally, has fallen on the quality of teaching and learning in higher education. This concern is “associated with calls for greater accountability and efficiency, increases in the size and diversity of the student population and a relative decline in the real value of funds available for higher education” (Hativa & Goodyear, 2002, p1). In New Zealand, this trend has been evident in three ways: a proposal from the Ministry of Education to evaluate, and partly fund, tertiary education organisations on the basis of their teaching (Ministry of Education, 2004); the expansion and internationalisation of tertiary student populations; and the decline in government funding per student since the Todd Report (Todd, 1994). Calls for New Zealand to develop a “knowledge economy” assume this to be driven, in part, by innovative research and development emanating from the efforts of science and engineering companies. To facilitate this, these companies need a steady supply of quality science and engineering graduates. Tertiary institutions, therefore, need a corresponding understanding of the educational environment and approaches that are most likely to produce such graduates. Concerns about the quality of science and engineering programmes also need to be seen within the context of the widespread debate about the goals, merits, and relevance of tertiary education across all disciplines (Barnett, 1997; Dunne, 1999; Martin, 1999; Taylor, 1999; Tight, 2000). From their review of 20 years of major literature on attitudes to science, Osborne, Simon, and Collins (2003) concluded that research into students’ attitudes to science is necessary to understand the continuing decline in numbers choosing to study science.

2. Aims and objectives

This research aims to build upon current research in the area of teaching and learning at tertiary level and explore the nature of learning communities in tertiary science and engineering. Specifically, the aims are to:

• contribute to an understanding of the nature of learning communities in tertiary science and engineering and how they work to enhance teaching and student achievement
• understand how the nature of the learning community might differ for teachers teaching different levels of students, and for learners over their time of participation in that community
• build capability in educational research for tertiary science and engineering lecturers by involving them in the research process
• investigate the use of a sociocultural view of learning to understand teaching and learning in higher education.

The purposes of the research are embodied in the following objectives:

• research student perceptions of learning in tertiary science and engineering—this will involve examining students’ ideas about the purposes of learning events, how they learn, who they learn from, and how the nature of the learning environment impacts on their learning
• research teacher perceptions of teaching in tertiary science and engineering—this will involve examining their purposes in teaching, their perceptions of student learning, and how the nature of the learning environment has an effect on their teaching
• research interactions between teachers and students to understand how the nature of their relationship might influence learning—this will involve gathering data on teacher and student views about these relationships, observations of the relationships, and their development over time
• research the changes in learning experiences for students as they progress through their undergraduate degrees and into graduate study—this will involve following the progress of a group of students through two years of study, and asking lecturers about their perceptions of teaching students at different levels
• work alongside lecturers to scaffold research-informed development of their teaching programmes—this will involve the lecturers in planning and carrying out the research, analysing the data and reflecting on how the data may inform their practice.

Research question

This study will use a sociocultural approach to address the following question:

What are teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of the nature of the learning community in tertiary science and engineering?

Although the context of this research is tertiary science and engineering, the findings will have relevance to other areas of tertiary study. In particular, the methodology of the research could be adapted to any subject area, and this study’s findings are likely to have implications for other subjects within universities and polytechnics.

3. Research design and critique

Research design

As this study sought to identify the perceptions of the participants and was predicated upon the meaning of experiences, an interpretive approach (Erickson, 1998) was considered to be the most suitable. The study acknowledged the socially embedded nature of students’ and teachers’ experiences within tertiary science and engineering education and aimed to explore and understand their perceptions of these experiences within their contexts (Johnson & Christensen, 2000; Neuman, 2000). To this end, the project used a case study design (Bassey, 1999; Merriam, 1998) to develop in-depth understanding of the situation and to explore meaning from a number of perspectives (Merriam, 1998). A case study approach allows the influence of context to be acknowledged and explained, and analysis of data seeks to describe the interactions and practices within the context.

Interpretive studies can use a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection, allowing for both breadth and depth of views to be gathered. In this study, data were collected from multiple sources—the use of multiple sources of data allow triangulation of the findings, which enhances its validity and reliability. Conclusions on the case can be drawn which, when situated in the context of the case, allow the reader to decide the extent to which the findings can be generalised to another context.

We were also interested to understand how the nature of the learning community might differ for teachers teaching different levels of students, and for learners over their time of participation in that community. This dictated the design of a cross-sectional, but also partly longitudinal, study.

One of the goals of the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative is to encourage partnerships between researchers to foster capacity in educational research, so we sought to build capability in educational research for tertiary science and engineering lecturers from a number of tertiary education insititutions by involving them in the research process.

This, then, was a two-year study to investigate learners’ and lecturers’ experiences of the tertiary learning community over time. This longitudinal approach is uncommon in the literature and will contribute to understanding student enculturation into tertiary learning communities. The study also contains a cross-sectional element permitting an analysis of teaching and learning experiences across four levels at the tertiary education institutions within the two years of the project. It involves four tertiary education institutions that represent a range of tertiary education opportunities: two universities—University of Waikato and Auckland University of Technology (AUT)—and two polytechnics—Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec) and Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (CPIT). The data collected from each institution were used by research partners within that institution, in collaboration with members of the research team, to write a case study of their institution.

Data gathering and handling

In this study, data were collected by means of questionnaire, interview, observation, and document analysis. The questionnaire offers the advantage that the instrument can be used to survey a large number of people within a short time period. Questionnaires can contain either closed, structured questions or open, unstructured questions, or both. Closed, structured questions are best when the sample is large, there is a finite range of responses required, and statistical analysis will be used; that is, quantitative data are produced. Open, unstructured questions are best when the sample is small, the range of responses is unknown, and meaning is being looked for; that is, qualitative data are produced (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,2000). In this study, questionnaires containing closed questions were used to gain a breadth of data from students in each institution (see Appendices A to C for the questionnaires). The questionnaires were administered by research partners in each institution and statistically analysed by a research assistant. The findings were then co-analysed by the research partnership. The findings of the questionnaires were used to inform development of interview questions for both student focus groups and teachers.

Interviews were used to probe staff and student views more deeply. Interviews allow an opportunity to clarify responses, probe respondents, and cover an issue in depth. Interviewing can be seen as a purposeful conversation in which the participants use natural language to express themselves so that in-depth information can be gathered directly from the participants’ own words (Burns, 2000; Cohen et al., 2000).

In this study, a member of the research team carried out semi-structured interviews with staff and students. One-to-one interviews were conducted with staff, and focus group interviews were conducted with students. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed into written form, and the content analysed by the research team. (See Appendix D for interview protocols.)

A third method of data collection used was observation. As our interest was in the socioculturallydetermined learning community, a view of what was happening in this community could be gained by non-participant observation. In this method, the researcher enters the community and observes without interacting. In this study, lecture and laboratory classes were observed. Data were collected on student and teacher behaviour, and student–teacher interaction. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative data was obtained and analysed, and triangulated with staff and student interview data and the document analysis. These data were collected by a researcher not employed at the particular institution and analysed by a research assistant. Outcomes not attributable to any particular participant were then co-analysed by the research partnership. (See Appendix E for observations.)

Finally, data were also collected through document analysis. In each institution, where available and appropriate, course outlines, laboratory manuals, study guides, and assessment items were examined. In each case, the documents allowed for triangulation of the expectations and experiences of the teacher and students.

Validity and reliability are enhanced by the multiple methods used, including the extensive data triangulation as detailed above.

Research phases

The first year of the project involved a cohort of first-year and a cohort of third-year science and engineering students while the second year of the project involved second- and fourth-year students. The student sample was drawn from undergraduate science and engineering classes in the four participating institutions:

• School of Science and Engineering, University of Waikato—offers bachelor, masters, and doctorate degrees in a range of science and engineering subjects
• Faculty of Science and Engineering, AUT—offers bachelor and masters degrees, and includes subject options in applied science, mechanical engineering, electrotechnology, and applied mathematics
• Department of Science and Technology, Wintec—offers diplomas and certificates, and includes a range of applied science and technology courses
• Faculty of Design and Engineering, CPIT—offers certificates, diplomas, and degrees in electronic, computer, mechanical, and construction engineering as well as art, design, and broadcasting.

In Phase One, the first year of the project, first-year science and engineering students were surveyed during the first few weeks of their programme. Survey questions were quantitative in nature and explored the nature of their learning at school and their expectations of their tertiary study. Third-year students in science and engineering were also surveyed during this year about their learning experiences to date. This survey focused on their learning experiences during their years of study and how these experiences measured up to their expectations.

Phase Two, in the later part of the first year of the study, involved convening focus groups of first- and third-year students for interviews that probed the students’ learning experiences. Interview questions at this point focused on the nature of the students’ learning experiences during the year, and the social and cultural influences that affected on their learning.

In Phase Three, in the second year of the study, the now second-year students were surveyed. This survey focused on gathering quantitative survey data on the students’ learning experiences in their previous year of study and their expectations for the year ahead.

Phase Four, part way through the second year of the study, involved convening focus groups of second-year students for interviews. These interviews explored the process of the students’ enculturation into the tertiary science and engineering communities. In one institution, a focus group of fourth-year students was also interviewed towards the end of the second year of the study.

The case studies

Although all four case studies conformed to the research design described above, there were important differences between the cases. The following section provides a summary of each case in terms of the institutional context, data gathering methods, and participant numbers. (Refer to Appendices G to J for the full case studies.)

University of Waikato

The School of Science and Engineering at the University of Waikato has a total student enrolment of around 900 equivalent full-time students (EFTS) (domestic plus international students, who make up 10% of the total), with 25% of these being graduate and postgraduate students. These students are enrolled in one of three undergraduate degrees (BSc, BSc(Tech), or BE), or postgraduate studies (Master of Science, Master of Engineering, Master of Philosophy, Postgraduate Diploma, or Doctor of Philosophy), in a wide range of papers across all the science and engineering disciplines.

Questionnaire and focus group interview data were gathered from students in a variety of science and engineering papers. Data collection and participant numbers are summarised in Table 1.

Auckland University of Technology

AUT offers a wide range of postgraduate and undergraduate degrees, diplomas, and certificates via its major faculties of Design and Creative Technologies, Health and Environmental Science, Applied Humanities, Business, and Te Ara Poutama (The Pathway of Learning). The university now offers 36 bachelors degrees as well as postgraduate diplomas, masters, and doctoral degrees. The School of Engineering offers two undergraduate degrees, the Bachelor of Engineering and the Bachelor of Engineering Technology with Mechanical and Electrical/Electronic majors, and the School of Applied Science offers both the Bachelor of Medical Laboratory Science and a Bachelor of Applied Science, which has nine majors such as applied chemistry, food technology, and environmental science. The former Faculty of Science and Engineering, AUT enrolled 1,300 EFTS annually across a range of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.

Questionnaire and focus group interview data were gathered from students in a variety of science and engineering papers. Data collection and participant numbers are summarised in Table 2.

Waikato Institute of Technology

Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec) has three campuses in Hamilton. The main city site accommodates programmes from the schools of Information Technology; Business and Administration; Health; Communication; Education and Social Development; Science and Primary Industries, Te Toi-a-Kiwa: Māori, Pasifika and Indigenous Studies; English Language; and Media Arts, as well as most of the central administrative services. The Avalon campus on the northern outskirts of the city houses the schools of Trades, Engineering and Construction, Sport and Exercise Science, and Retail and Service Industries. The third Hamilton campus, the Horticultural Educational Centre, is situated at the Hamilton Gardens.

Wintec enrols more than 8,000 EFTS in two faculties—the Faculty of Business and Technology and the Faculty of Health, Arts and Social Sciences. These faculties comprise 12 schools of study with more than 300 full-time equivalent staff members. The institute offers programmes ranging from certificate to postgraduate degrees, including seven undergraduate degrees. Most of the programmes are at certificate and diploma level, with a practical career-based focus.

The cohort of students that took part in this study was drawn from the School of Science and Primary Industries and the School of Trades, Construction, and Engineering. The science students were all enrolled in the two-year Diploma in Technology. This is a full-time course designed to prepare students for employment in local science-based industries. There were 25 first-year students enrolled in this course in 2005, and in 2006 there were 12 second-year students.

The engineering students were enrolled in a Diploma in Technology or Diploma in Engineering, majoring in civil, mechanical, or electrical engineering. There were approximately 100 first-year students enrolled in this course in 2005, and in 2006 there were 50 second-year students enrolled.

Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology

This case study focused on students and staff involved in the Bachelor of Engineering Technology in Electrotechnology—BEngTech (Electrotechnology)—offered by the School of Engineering at CPIT.

The BEngTech programme of study has been designed with special emphasis on a professional career in terms of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) profile for engineering technologists, as prescribed by the Sydney Accord for three-year engineering degree qualifications. The School of Engineering accounts for approximately 220 EFTS with the BengTech attracting 39 of these EFTS, including full-time (majority) and part-time students.

CPIT has a full roll of approximately 6100 EFTS (2006).

Ethical considerations

Approval was gained for the project from the University of Waikato Human Research Ethics Committee and, where necessary, from partner institutions. All data gathering adhered to the practices approved by the Ethics Committee and included gaining informed consent from all participants, respecting the privacy and confidentiality of the participants and ensuring no harm from their participation. (See Appendix F for Ethical Consent Forms.)

As questionnaires were completed anonymously, maintaining students’ anonymity was easily achieved and there were few ethical issues to address in providing access within the project to student questionnaire data. Students were interviewed in groups so, once again, anonymity was easily achieved. Care had to be taken, however, to remove any parts of student interview that specifically identified either staff or students before student interview data could be made available to research partners.

As teaching staff were interviewed individually and the nature of the interviews meant that there was a high chance that they could be identified, particularly within their own institution, staff interview data were analysed by members of the research team and only thematic summaries of the interview data made available to research partners.

Research design critique

The project proceeded well, with each phase of the research being implemented successfully. The partnership relations within the project were well founded and had opportunities to strengthen throughout the research.

Having four institutions in the project, each of which had a different academic year, semester structure, and timetable, made it difficult to find convenient times for full-project meetings as it was seldom that the times suited all the project partners. While this difficulty was mitigated to a large extent by the use of email, phone, and tele-conference to maintain ongoing communication and collaboration, opportunities to meet face-to-face are particularly helpful in building relationships and clarifying goals, and additional full-project meetings would have been helpful.

A case-study approach has allowed a distinct and contextualised picture to be developed for each institution and has produced some rich data that provide insights into teaching and learning experiences of students and teachers within those learning communities. While each case can stand alone, analysis across the four cases identifies some emergent themes that provides helpful insights into tertiary science and engineering education in New Zealand.

4. Findings

Literature review

This study takes a sociocultural approach to examining a number of factors that may have an effect on tertiary science and engineering learning communities. These factors include social relationships, and the socially and culturally-determined teaching and learning approaches adopted.

The nature and role of teacher–student and student–student relationships in tertiary learning situations have been discussed by Dawes (2004), National Science Foundation (1998), Aufschnaiter (2003), and Welzel, von Aufschnaiter, and Schoster (1999). The findings reported by these authors included that students were often heavily influenced by only one or two significant teachers; and that teachers were conscious of the language they used in shaping interactions. While studies have been done on the influence of contextual factors such as gender and socioeconomic background on students’ attitudes to science, there is only a small amount of research (e.g., Yeo & Zadnik, 2004) into the way attitudes to, and understanding of, science and tertiary level study in science are shaped by their experience of lectures and learning at the tertiary level. In other studies, Ferreira (2003) and Lovitts (1996) both found that attrition had less to do with what the students bring into the tertiary institution than with what happens to them once they get there.

That social relationships in tertiary environments are important was indicated by Dalgety (2002), who found a positive relationship between a student having an associate (friend, relation) in a science field and their intention to continue studying science. Recent work by Leach, Zepke, and Prebble (2006) has also indicated that social relationships have a significant effect on the quality of students’ tertiary learning experiences and their decisions to stay or leave tertiary study. These findings suggest that student choices may be strongly influenced by their social interactions.

Other research has found that tertiary science students’ perceptions of their lessons are linked to their perceptions of teaching staff (Aldridge et al., 2002). Those positive about their lecturers’ teaching are usually positive about classes (Waldrip & Fisher, 2001). However, teachers and students differ in their perceptions of what makes a “good” science teacher (Robertson & Bond, 2001).

An important focus of this project was to examine how student and teacher approaches to learning shape the learning community. A recent Canadian study (Kreber, 2003) replicated earlier work by Biggs (1987) and others (for example, Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002) by demonstrating a strong relationship between student approaches to learning and their perceptions of the learning environment. Studies have shown that learner-centered teaching suits some students who find this style more engaging (Waldrip & Fisher, 2001) but other students are more comfortable with teacher-centred instruction, particularly if assessment is examination based (Aldridge et al., 2002; Mulligan & Kirkpatrick, 2000). In examining how students determine what is important and what to write down in a lecture, Johnstone and Su (1994) concluded that lectures were not really learning experiences but rather outlines, or overviews, of what was to be learned. Research suggests that students tend to prefer learning experiences that involve active participation such as those provided in laboratory work (Bennet, Rollnick, Green, & White, 2001) and various types of small group activities (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Stonyer, Dodd, Marshall, and Oberst (2001) go so far as to advocate the importance of group work throughout entire tertiary programmes.

Student approaches to their learning and what has an influence on these approaches have also been explored by Ramsden (2003), Lizzio et al. (2002), Case and Gunstone (2003), Prosser and Trigwell (1999), and Trigwell and Ashwin (2003). Trigwell and Ashwin examined how high achieving undergraduate students’ perceptions of motivation, conceptions of learning, and their approach to their studies differed from those of other students. They found that achievement was linked to the degree to which students’ conceptions of learning and their learning environment matched those of the university in which they were studying. Features of their study have been used to inform this study, particularly relating to the variation in student experience in different years of study and student perceptions of collegiality (that is, what influences allegiance to the department, school, university, and interpersonal contact).

There has also been a corresponding research interest in how tertiary teachers conceptualise their teaching (Hativa & Goodyear, 2002; Marton, Hounsell, & Entwistle, 1997; Martin, Prosser, Trigwell, Ramsden, & Benjamin, et al., 2002; Patrick, 1998; Pratt, 1998; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Prosser & Trigwell found that different teacher approaches interact with the ideas that students bring into the learning environment and affect the quality of the eventual learning.

Higher education scholars (Biggs, 2003; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Exley, 1999; Entwistle, Skinner, Entwistle, & Orr, 2000; Halpern & Hakel, 2003; Ramsden, 1988, 1997, 2003; Weimer, 2003) have encouraged tertiary teachers to develop teaching approaches which take cognisance of, and build on, research findings about how students go about their learning. Ideas about best practice based on ongoing research into teacher and student beliefs and approaches, and teacher– student interactions are extensively publicised in the literature on tertiary teaching and disseminated to practitioners by organisations such as the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) in the United Kindgom.

This research study focuses on the relationships and the teaching and learning approaches that frame the learning community in tertiary science and engineering. The study recognises that interactions between participants, the language, artifacts, and tools within a learning community are socially, culturally, and historically determined. This focus is based on a sociocultural view of learning and an understanding of the learning process acquired through both teaching and research (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Dalgety, Coll, & Jones, 2003; Eames 2003; Lave, 1991, 1997). Learning in this view is seen as increasing participation in the community (Rogoff, 1999), which leads to enculturation (Hennessy, 1993). By investigating teacher and student perceptions of the tertiary teaching and learning experience, the objective is to determine whether, and if so, how, being a tertiary science or engineering student involves a gradual progression into full participation in a particular community of learning, and development of a professional identity.

This study is also timely as increasingly flexible delivery of tertiary education is challenging the notion of the traditional campus as a learning community. It will contribute to our understanding of what it means to teach and learn in contemporary tertiary learning communities.

The case studies

Four case studies were developed in this project, one for each of the partner institutions, and each case study is presented in full as an appendix to this report.

While the following themes emerged from analysis of the four cases, it should be noted that the themes do not apply equally to each case. Please refer to the individual case studies for more detail on the contributing data.

Emergent themes

Relationships
Students and teachers in all institutions commented that developing positive working relationships within the tertiary science and engineering community was important. This applied to both teacher–student and student–student relationships. In particular, teachers felt it important to get to know their students by name, address them as individuals, and show concern for student progress, both academically and personally. This was thought to help develop a relaxed teaching environment which encouraged student participation. Teachers saw practical classes as venues for greater relationship development as the more informal teaching situation allowed more time for one-to-one conversation. A good teacher–student relationship was also seen to assist teachers in accurately gauging student progress.

Students at all institutions acknowledged the fundamental role that their working relationship with their teacher played in shaping their learning experiences. This was apparent in factors such as approachability of the teacher, making classes more enjoyable, and motivating students to learn. Students who saw their teachers as approachable and accessible were much more likely to seek help from them and to feel encouraged to participate. Students also recognised that their relationships with their teachers developed more strongly with time, and particularly after their first year of study. In some institutions, this was credited to the smaller class sizes as students progressed through their years of study, allowing greater individual interaction between students and teachers. Students pointed out that development of a strong learning relationship with their teacher was easier when one or only a few teachers were involved in teaching them in a particular paper.

Both students and teachers also saw value in students developing relationships with each other. These relationships were seen to provide both moral and academic support in areas such as sharing ideas and concerns about their learning, sharing notes, and collaborating in studying. Where students were not able to develop these relationships early on in their course, they were seen to be at a disadvantage and, therefore, both teachers and students felt it was important for opportunities to be provided for these relationships to be developed early.

In terms of developing a sense of belonging to a particular institution, students reported that they did develop an increasing sense of connection over their years of study but that this connection was related to the personal relationships they had formed with other students and staff rather than a sense of belonging to the institution.

Class size
A consistent theme across all case studies was the effect of class size on teaching and learning. There was unequivocal support for the benefits of small classes on student learning. Small classes were seen to promote teacher–student and student–student relationships, and to encourage greater student involvement in learning processes and hence a sense of belonging in the learning community. As noted above, relationships were reported to be stronger as students progressed through the years of their courses and classes generally became smaller. Small class sizes encouraged students to participate more actively in class, to attend more regularly when their absence would be noticed, and get help when they needed it.

Students at smaller institutions commented that the existence of small class sizes at their institution was a major attraction.

Pedagogical approaches
Of the types of learning situations most commonly encountered in tertiary science and engineering (such as lectures, practical classes, tutorials, and field trips), practical classes were the most highly valued by both students and teachers. Students found practical classes interesting and, as mentioned earlier, both staff and students found practical classes provided greater opportunities for interaction and relationship building. Practical classes were seen by many staff and students to assist students’ understanding by contextualising the more theoretical aspects of their subject. Practical classes were also seen to help students learn the process and practical problem-solving skills that many teachers felt could not successfully be achieved without the practical sessions. In many cases, the vocational relevance of practical sessions was also a source of student motivation and interest.

Although practical classes were highly valued by students, they found it helpful to have a combination of theoretical and practical teaching sessions particularly when these were integated and related in a timely way. Students felt that having all parts of a particular paper—that is, lectures, practical classes, and tutorials—run by the same teacher was very helpful in integrating the theoretical and practical aspects of their course.

Lectures were a common teaching mode in all institutions and while they were seen as a useful way to organise and disseminate large amounts of course content in a relatively short time, students and staff had mixed feelings about how effective lectures, particularly those with large numbers of students and few opportunities for interacion, were in helping students understand the presented material.

Where teachers had had some teacher training, they spoke of their endeavour to be more studentcentred in their approach. However, they also felt constrained in their ability to do so, believing that such approaches took more time, which then affected their ability to adequately cover the subject content they felt needed to be taught. Completion of some form of formal teacher training was reported by the teachers in the polytechnics but not in the universities.

Transition to tertiary study
Students’ transition to tertiary study was generally characterised by a need for students to become more independent, self-reliant, and proactive in their learning. Successfully adapting to a tertiary study environment appeared to take most students several months, with the transition more difficult for students who had come straight from high school. Being able to quickly form relationships and connections with other students and with teachers appeared to be an important factor in facilitating this transition. The large first-year classes that students often encountered in tertiary institutions was seen as a barrier to forming these relationships.

Sporting and cultural involvement
Students reported that they were not as involved in their institution’s sporting and cultural activities as they had expected to be. While students had expected a high workload during their tertiary studies, they found that the workload was higher than expected and this pressure on their time may be one reason for their generally low participation in sporting and cultural activities. In addition, many students were working part-time while studying and this may also reduce the time available for them to participate.

Research versus teaching
Although teachers generally acknowledged the dual importance of research and teaching in their work, staff in institutions whose programmes were predominantly concerned with the vocational and professional preparation of students were more likely to consider teaching as their first priority. These teachers felt they were under increasing pressure to increase their research outputs and expressed concern that greater emphasis on research within their institutions may have a negative impact on the time and emphasis given to teaching.

Implications

The themes that emerged from the four case studies suggest that tertiary institutions need to consider ways to:

• facilitate the development of positive teacher–student and student–student relationships as early as possible in a student’s time at the institution
• help students become more involved in the wider cultural and sporting activities of the institute
• create and/or maintain small class sizes to maximise learning opportunities through personal interaction and relationship-building
• help teachers develop methods to deliver high levels of subject content in student-centred ways
• deliver science and engineering courses so that theoretical knowledge and practical applications complement each other in a timely fashion
• ensure that teaching, learning and research are equally valued within the culture of the institution.

5. Limitations

The project generally went smoothly, with researchers and partners collaborating effectively to design and implement the various phases of the project to generate the necessary data. However, many of our project partners, while experienced in their own fields of science and/or engineering, had little experience in education research, and once the project entered the stages of analysing and reporting the data it became clear that more time needed to be allocated to working with partners on these aspects of the project. This is not seen as a limitation of the project partners but a limitation of the project design, which did not correctly anticipate the time and support needed for this aspect of the project. Feedback from our partners indicated that they would have liked more opportunity to meet as a team to discuss how to analyse the data, and more time to complete the case study writing.

To enhance our understanding of the learning communities that were studied, it would have been helpful to gather and include data on the retention rates within the science and engineering programmes involved in the project. These data were not collected and this was therefore a limitation of the study.

6. Recommendations for future work

The emergent themes and accompanying implications from this project suggest a number of avenues for further research, but one of the clearest indications from this project is the centrally important role played by relationships in shaping the quality of teaching and learning experiences. This finding resonates with recent research by Leach et al. (2006). While the case studies presented in this project shed light on the types of teaching and learning situations that promote relationship-building, further work is needed to examine:

• how positive relationships might be fostered early in a student’s time in a tertiary institution y the types of relationships that are most conducive to students’ learning and success within a tertiary learning environment
• how these relationships change over time, and the differences between the sorts of relationships necessary for success as a first-year tertiary student compared to a third-year or post graduate student
• the extent to which cultural differences promote or constrain the development of positive relationships.

Although a direct examination of student achievement was not the focus of this project, a helpful extension of the project’s work might be to investigate the effect of successful (or otherwise) relationship building on students’ tertiary achievement. In other words, are those students who say their teachers are approachable and accessible, and therefore more likely to seek help from them, also more likely to be successful in terms of passing the course?

7. Building capacity and capability

The project team

The project team comprises a research team of three people who had overall responsibility for the research, and nine project partners who completed the case studies on the individual institutions.

Project team members are listed below:

Author affiliations

Case study: Auckland University of Technology

Case study: Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology

Case study: University of Waikato

Case study: Waikato Institute of Technology

Building the capability of the project partners

This project has provided an opportunity for a group of tertiary educators to carry out research into the teaching and learning environment in their institutions. The project has afforded the research partners the opportunity to gain experience in all aspects of the research from designing and planning to implementing, analysing, interpreting, reporting, and reflecting on the implications of the data, both for their institution and for tertiary science and engineering education in general. Partners report that they found the project a helpful learning experience and that they would be interested in being further involved in tertiary education research in future. The connections forged during this project may provide a good basis for further collaborative research and development.

Enhancing project partners’ understanding of teaching and learning

This project has enabled the project partners to examine in some detail the nature of learning communities in science and engineering education in their own and other New Zealand tertiary institutions. The findings of the study, as illustrated by the four case studies, indicate that the project partners have developed a greater understanding of the issues affecting teaching and learning in tertiary science and engineering. Some partners have indicated their intention to use the case study findings as the basis for further review and development of their science and engineering programmes.

References

Aldridge, J., Fraser, B., Murray, K., Combes, B., Proctor, D., & Knapton, P. (2002, April). Learning environment, teaching strategies and the implementation of a grade 11 nuclear physics program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LO.

Atkin, M., & Black, P. (2003). Inside science education reform: A history of curricular change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Aufschnaiter, C. (2003). Interactive processes between university students: Structures of interactions and related cognitive development. Research in Science Education, 33 (3), 341–374.

Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and Open University Press.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Bennet, J., Rollnick, M., Green, G., & White, M. (2001). The development and use of an instrument to assess students’ attitudes to the study of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (8), 833–845.

Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated learning and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42.

Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Case, J., & Gunstone, R. (2003). Approaches to learning in a second year chemical engineering course. International Journal of Science, 25 (7), 801–819.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), 3–7.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). The development of the Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (7), 649–668.

Dawes, L. (2004). Research report. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (6), 677–695.

Dunne, E. (1999). The learning society: International perspectives on core skills in higher education. London: Kogan Page.

Eames, C. W. (2003). Learning through cooperative education work placements in science and technology. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton.

Eames, C., & Forret, M. (2005, December). Understanding and enhancing learning communities in tertiary education in science and engineering. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE), Dunedin.

Eames, C., & Bell, B. (2005). Using sociocultural views of learning to investigate the enculturation of students into the scientific community through work placements. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5 (1), 153–169.

Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about “good teaching”: An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research and Development, 19 (1), 5–26.

Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1174). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Exley, K. (1999). Key aspects of teaching and learning in science and engineering. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.

Ferreira, M. (2003). Gender issues related to graduate student attrition in two science departments. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (8), 969–989.

Halpern, D., & Hakel, M. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond. Change, 35 (4), 36–44.

Hativa, N., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2002). Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22, 1–41.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnstone, A., & Su, W. (1994). Lectures: A learning experience. Education in Chemistry, 31 (5), 75–79.

Kreber, C. (2003). The relationship between students’ course perception and their approaches to studying in undergraduate science courses: A Canadian experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 22 (1), 57–75.

Leach, L., Zepke, N., & Prebble, T. (2006). Now you have got them, how do you keep them? Relationships and the retention puzzle. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 41 (1), 113– 132.

Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice, perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp 17–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (1), 27–52.

Lovitts, B. (1996, April). Who is responsible for graduate student attrition—the individual or the institution? Toward an explanation of the high and persistent rate of attrition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Martin, E. (1999). Changing academic work: Developing the learning university. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2002). What university teachers teach and how they teach it. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (Eds.). (1997). The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ministry of Education. (2004). Performance-based element of the student component. Author. Retrieved 11 June 2004, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document &documentid=8754&indexid=1028&indexparentid=1000

Mulligan, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2000). How much do they understand? Lectures, students and comprehension. Higher Education Research and Development, 19 (3), 311–336.

National Science Foundation. (1998). Summary of a workshop on graduate student attrition. NSF report 99–314. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1049–1079.

Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Patrick, R. (1998, July). The relationship between the teaching/learning philosophy and practice of six experienced tertiary teachers: Emerging themes from a qualitative study. Paper presented at the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia, Auckland.

Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Florida: Krieger Publishing.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy: Situational influences on learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.

Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Robertson, J., & Bond, C. (2001). Experiences of the relation between teaching and research: What do academics value? Higher Education Research and Development, 20 (2), 5–20.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Springer, L., Stanne, M., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 21–51.

Stonyer, H., Dodd, D., Marshall, L., & Oberst, H. (2001, September). Enhancing groupwork in engineering. Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the Australian Association for Environmental Education (AAEE) (pp. 205–211), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Taylor, P. G. (1999). Making sense of academic life. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

Tight, M. (Ed.). (2000). Academic work and life: What it is to be an academic and how this is changing. New York: Elsevier Science.

Todd, J. (1994). Funding growth in tertiary education and training. Wellington: New Zealand Ministerial Consultative Group.

Trigwell, K., & Ashwin, P. (2003). Undergraduate students’ experience of learning at the University of Oxford. Institute for the Advancement of University Learning. Retrieved [day month year], from http://www.learning.ox.ac.uk/iaul/pdf/OLCPFinal.pdf

Waldrip, B., & Fisher, D. (2001, July). Student–teacher interactions and exemplary science teaching. Paper presented at the 32nd annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Sydney.

Weimer, M. (2003). Focus on learning, transform teaching. Change, 35 (5), 49–56.

Welzel, M., von Aufschnaiter, C., & Schoster, A. (1999). How to interact with students? The role of teachers in a learning situation. In J. Leach & A. C. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education—recent research studies (pp. 313–327). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2004). Students’ responses to different first year science learning environments. HERDSA Conference Proceedings, 2004 (pp. 349–360).

Acknowledgements

The project team would like to thank all those members of academic staff from each of our partner institutions who assisted in organising interviews and administering student questionnaires.

We would also like to thank the students who completed questionnaires and the staff and students who took part in interviews—without their co-operation this research would not have been possible.

We also acknowledge the funding for this project that was provided by the Ministry of Education through the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.