Politics (1994) 14(2) pp. 83-90

The Engine Room of Instruction Small Group Teaching Bruce Wood and Michael Moran

?Be changing role of tutoriab and tutors in an age of mass higher education is sketched ?Be dflering purposes of small group teach- ing are explored small groups are shown to have a variety of academic and pastoral functions. ?Be mechanics of tutorial organi- sation are explored and the range of teach- ing formats examined

Introduction Higher Education in Britain stands out

because of its traditional emphasis on small group teaching. The ‘tutorial! (we use the term to cover what may be styled ‘class’, ‘seminar’ or ‘teaching group’ in various Departments of Politics) is truly the engine- room of instruction, whether it be used to extend the understanding of the contents of lectures or to introduce different but related materials and approaches. Tutorials are nor- mally the main way in which academics and their students interact with each other.

Tutorial giving is also commonly the first

academic teaching experience of would-be political scientists: postgraduates. And, with the explosion in student numbers, many Poli- tics Departments have turned to part-time ‘outsiders’ for help with the provision of small group teaching. Hence, particularly in the case of basic first and second year under- graduate courses, Universities are very depen- dent on what is now a huge army of ‘irregulars’ for the provision of high quality teaching. The Political Studies Association finally recognised this in a formal way in November 1993 when it published a Code of Conduct designed to ensure good practice and lay down professional standards in the employment of tutorial ‘irregulars’. Strilungly different standards in terms of training, the provision of course materials for tutors, and the monitoring of tutors’ performance had been found in a PSA survey (PSA, 1993, p. 12).

This article seeks to offer practical advice, not by advocating a single ‘best practice’ approach but by outlining everyday tips which are as often ‘don’ts’ as they are ‘dos’.

Bruce Wood and Michael Moran, University of Manchester.

0 Political Studies Association 1994. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 UF, UK and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. 83

Small Group Teaching Bruce Wood and Michael M o m Politics (1994) 14(2) pp. 83-90

There is no one single way of running the perfect tutorial. Tutors, students and the sub- ject matter of courses all vary. So does the frequency of tutorials and their numerical size. But whatever the syllabus content (about which we deliberately say nothing), our firm belief is that students are justifiably resentful of teachers who are ill-prepared or badly organised. Good teachers best exhibit mas- tery of their subject not by spontaneity alone, but by careful pre-planning to ensure clarity of communication.

The purposes of tutorials Tutorial teaching has numerous objectives. These range from the mundane to the crea- tive, as the following list shows.

(a) to check attendance (and, through it, locate students with health, personal or academic problems);

(b) to encourage students to work steadily and regularly (i.e. progress chasing);

(c) to ensure that students understand the expectations of the course leader;

(d) to cover the course syllabus reasonably comprehensively;

(e) to identlfy dficulties students may have with their course ‘management’ (for example: shortages of books and materi- als, lost syllabi and reading lists; technical problems with lectures - accents, jargon, room changes);

(f) to develop skills of written communica- tion through the receipt of essays and transmission back of comments (not dis- cussed here, but see Moran and Wood, 1991, pp. 27-33);

(g) to get students to think quickly ‘on their feet’;

(h) to improve the social skills and self-con- fidence of students;

// (i) to develop the verbal performance of

students so that they can put across and defend a position or argument articu- lately under pressure.

Clearly, not all of these objectives apply to every subject, course or even academic year. A course with only a couple of dozen stu- dents, for instance, may be small enough for there to be some discussion and feedback at certain lectures - to clarify the course leader’s expectations or to resolve course manage- ment problems. By the final undergraduate year there may need to be less emphasis on the development of basic social skills and on the location of students with problems.

The good tutorial system still has to handle many different objectives. The effective Tutor needs to be constantly aware of the range of issues which confront him or her. In parti- cular, there is a clear contrast between perso- nal and intellectual aspects of tutorials. Good communications - the foundation stone around which tutorials are built - are devel- oped in recognition of this contrast and to build bridges to span the two. If students are not reasonably comfortable, learning is diffi- cult. The effective tutor is flexible and aware, ready to adapt his or her expectations of the tutorial when circumstances warrant it. This means that the effective tutor needs to be an all-round communicator - receptive to spoken or unspoken messages from the students as well as able to transmit to the students: both a listener and a talker.

Organising the tutorial: establishing a routine The variety of tutorial routines seems almost endless. A generation ago it was fashionable for academics to use the ‘single paper-giver’ approach. A decade ago fashion favoured ‘open discussion’. Today, partly due to the need to manage the growing numbers of ‘irregulars’ referred to earlier, a more struc- tured arrangement is frequently in vogue, par- ticularly on large basic courses.

In truth there really is no ‘wrong’ way to run a tutorial. However, there is one thing which should be avoided if tutorials are to be

84 0 Political Studies Association 1994.

Politics (1994) 14(2) pp. 83-90 Small Group Teaching a Bruce Wood and Michael Moran

constructive and demanding on the intellec- tual abilities of students: that is uncertuinty. Students can only prepare for tutorials if they know what is expected of them (a paper, a few points, advance reading on an agreed or laid down topic). Hence the effective tutor moves quickly to establish both (1) an agenda of topics (if not laid down in the course syllabus) and ( 2 ) a system of operat- ing or a working method for the tutorial.

Uncertainty about the agenda and the operating system has consequences affecting both the personal and the intellectual aspects of tutorials. Students perform best when they are ‘comfortable’ about the basic arrange- ments. This is particularly true of those who are shy, quiet or lacking in self-confidence: unless one believes in the ‘short, sharp shock approach, they, above all, need reassurance and clear expectations.

Tutors can only meet these student needs if they have thought carefully about the rou- tines which they wish to impose on the tutor- ial (students do expect to be told what is expected of them, and do accept almost any- thing in the way of ‘rules’, as long as they are clear and are authoritatively presented). In Figure 1 a continuum of arrangements is offered, ranging from the single paper-giver to the open dscussion.

‘The paper’ sees one member of the group preparing, in effect, an essay and presenting it by, normally, reading it out. After the pre-

sentation, which might take 10 or even 20 minutes, the rest of the group is expected to ‘discuss’ the paper - in practice to ask ques- tions and seek clarification; to challenge the paper (occasionally); to offer an alternative analysis (very occasionally).

‘Papers’ help ensure that the topic is dealt with in some depth, and they develop the important verbal skills of presentation (in the case of the paper-giver) and of discussion. Additionally, the other students may well be able to take a reasonably coherent set of notes. The tutor can add to the slulls of all the group by commenting on both structure and content of the paper, and by showing students how, when taking notes, to jot down points to raise in discussion (in the margin, in a circle, or using some such highlighting technique).

Against this, ‘the paper’ has its critics. The commonest complaints are, first, that only one member of the group really prepares for the tutorial and, second, that the whole event degenerates into a poorly presented (often simply read out) mini-lecture followed by long criticisms from the tutor, many of which (because they relate to the content rather than to structure and presentation) mean little or nothing to most of the rest of the group. At the end of the course the average student has made only two or three presenta- tions and very little other contribution to the tutorial. He/she has not covered the syllabus,

Figure 1 : Types of Tutorial: A Continuum

0 Political Studies Association 1994 85

Small Group Teaching 0 Bruce Wood and Michael Moran Politics (1994) 14(2) pp. 83-90

nor have several other tutorial objectives been met (notably there has been little ‘steady and regular’ work and few opportu- nities have arisen to ‘think on your feet’).

Fortunately it is possible to modify ‘the paper’ approach. The simplest modification is to appoint two, or even three, paper givers for each meeting. This has the advantage of increasing the frequency and regularity of stu- dents’ workloads, and of ensuring that there is cover in the event of absence (a nightmare tutorial has a sole, absent paper-giver on a topic with which the tutor is not very famil- iar!). Two further modhcations are also worth considering. One is to make the paper- givers argue from different standpoints: stu- dent A thus prepares the case that ‘Parliament is a rubber stamp’; student B prepares the counter-case. There are, of course, problems if one student is much better than the other, and the danger arises that, without very good chairing, the outcome could be that nobody (including the paper givers) leaves with a rounded picture. Another moddication con- cerns the discussion of the paper or papers. The tutor could make it clear that someone (one, or two even) not presenting a paper will be expected to lead off the discussion - either by prior arrangement through a rota, or by random selection on the day.

These modifications can - but may not - strengthen the traditional tutorial based on ‘the paper’. Certainly it is feasible to get four or perhaps five students actively involved each week, and thls clearly introduces a more reg- ular pattern of work for tutorials, and a better coverage of the syllabus, than with the sole paper-giver approach. Against this there remains the possibility that there will be a good deal of tedious reading-out of points by students, and that self-confidence and verbal skills will develop less than in a more free- flowing atmosphere of discussion.

At the other end of the continuum is an ‘open discussion’ approach. In simple terms, all are to prepare every week, but a set amount - say an hour of reading - that is manageable. In terms of encouraging regular

work and covering the course syllabus, this would seem to be ideal. In addition, ‘thinking on your feet’ and improvements in self-con- fidence might be other by-products.

The reality is often different. Not all will come prepared each week, and the tutor needs to be very vigilant about establishing who has and has not arrived with research or reading done and points to make. The quieter students may remain quiet, again unless the tutor is viglant, even if they have done some preparatory work. The topic may be treated in an unbalanced manner (everyone might believe Parliament is a rubber stamp) and important points or angles might be missed -

yet again there is a need for vigilance and sig- nificant guidance from the tutor.

There are, of course, ways around these potential problems. An obvious one is to start the proceedings by going round the table asking what each student has read, and seek- ing one point from each. Alternatively, make sure the students know that you are looking to see exactly who has arrived with a page of notes. A random system of asking one stu- dent to lead off for two minutes, followed by one or two others to comment, can be uti- lised. Everyone can be asked to come pre- pared to make, say, six points which can be written on the blackboard and easily taken down in notes.

Obviously, in the course of an academic session in which there is a large number of meetings, a tutorial can change its format. A tutor may wish to try several approaches on the basis that each new organisation stimu- lates renewed interest in the tutorial meeting and in the course. There might be different approaches for different groups because each group of students develops its own unique ‘personality’. A syllabus might include material which is at times reasonably familiar to most students and at times quite new to them, again justifylng a change of style. But the important points to remember are these - that no one approach is right, and that stu- dents will react more positively when they are told in advance what is expected from them.

86 0 Political Studies Association 1994.

Politics (1994) 14(2) pp. 83-90 Small Group Teaching 0 Bruce Wood and Michael Moran

To switch, unannounced, from one extreme to another is inadvisable - either paper-givers will resent being unable to deliver because open discussion is to be the style that day, or nobody has a paper to give and all are embarrassed, disoriented, even annoyed.

Record keeping An important concluding point to emerge

from this discussion of routines concerns records. Whatever the approach, good record keeping is fundamental, and is not just con- fined to attendance. A brief note about the content of any papers, and about contribu- tions to the discussion is the minimum in the case of ‘the paper’. With ‘open discussion’ it is important to record not only who did come prepared but who did not. In this case one approach to any emerging pattern of variable preparation is publicly to list the names of the regular contributors and to indicate an expectation of a change at future meetings (the harsher opposite of publicly picking on defaulters is feasible but could be counterproductive if they have problems unknown to you at that stage - better, by far, to have a brief word individually with anyone apparently struggling).

The test of good record keeping is simple.

At the end of the course do your records allow you to produce a short but comprehen- sive report on the tutorial performance of each student? Such a report should be able to cover the student’s

- attendance record (includmg reasons for absences, if known)

- preparatory work for tutorials - verbal presentations - contribution to dscussions - general motivation and commitment - academic and non-academic problems - extra-curricular interests (if any become

known to you)

plus, of course - written work (not discussed here) with, finally, - an indication of the expected performance in exams.

Comprehensive reports can help the stu- dent; the Exam Board (if a borderline case); pastoral carers (if problems emerge); future tutors; and those who later act as academic referees. In short, the pithy, perceptive report is invaluable.

Tutors can only produce reports if they get to know their students. This is not easy if tutorials have ten or more members and meet only fortnightly, and if tutors have several of them to handle. One way of recalling who is who is to write down four points about each

Figure 2: Example of use of register to identi& students

0 Political Studies Association 1994 87

Small Group Teaching 0 Bmce Wood and Michael Moran Politics (1994) 14(2) pp. 83-90

student - in practice either one point sticks in the mind or the combination jogs the memory. The points are simple - both sur- name and first name; where the student is from, and a very brief physical description. As Figure 2 illustrates, all can be recorded on the basic attendance register, as can a fifth - the degree course of the student -if the group includes students from several programmes. The importance of putting all this in a small space is that at subsequent meetings the tutor can quickly utilise the information and take the initiative in acknowledging people’s pre- sence by name. By the third meeting, almost all will be known without recourse to the data!

Students actually find this construction of a miniature portrait quite amusing. It is often a good ice-breaker. Every student arrives at that initial meeting just a little uncertain and ner- vous (very much so in many cases). It is important to everyone that this situation is quickly dispelled. Their self esteem is at stake, as is your future tutorial programme - both they (and you) want everyone to perform as well and as naturally as possible: stilted, dry, silent tutorials are no fun, and teaching and learning can and should be fun (enjoyable, at any rate). The act of drawing up this exten- ded register alone has a function, for it indi- cates clearly that the aim is to get to know one another and to work together in a friendly, nonthreatening atmosphere.

Some tutorial ploys Tutorial groups normally look to the tutor to lead them; to make the running in the discus- sion; to chair and control the proceedmgs from start to finish. Those are the expecta- tions of the vast majority of students.

Groups vary greatly. Many quickly develop a sort of community or team spirit which makes the students relaxed enough to be able to work within a different regime from the norm. In such cases the tutor can engage in alternative approaches to the hierarchical

one of tutor control (without actually losing control). The advantage of such alternatives is that they may facilitate the development of skills which would not otherwise have been exploited. Of course these ploys are only part of the story; for reasons of space we neglect here the ‘task oriented’ tutorial styles which have developed in many disciplines.

Appointing a student to Chair a tutorial is one approach. This is a daunting task for most students and it is sensible to persuade gently, ensuring that your volunteer has the ability to control and induce discussion so as to take the topic forward. Only impose a Chair rota if you are prepared to give a lot of support at times, in effect taking over the lead role in the case of the weaker students.

Turning the topic into a semi-formal debate is another scheme. Divide the group into two - to propose and oppose a motion based on the set topic. Give each group ten minutes in a huddle to determine its order of speakers and the key points it will raise in the debate; ensure each group has a final speaker; chair the debate (or appoint a chairman). Alter- natively, appoint a ‘judge’, or pair of judges, to cross-question the two teams, and to deli- ver a considered verdict at the end.

A variation is to set the group a quick col- laborative exercise and leave them alone in the room to do it for five minutes. Some stu- dents who are inhibited by your presence can make an input in your absence. In addition, the group ‘owns’ the outputs of the exercise much more than when you lead it; and it promotes skills of working together in the absence of any authority or hierarchy of lea- dership. Part of almost any topic is amenable to this approach. For example, if the set topic is ‘How did the main channels through which citizens influence political decisions in the USSR alter during Gorbachev’s period in power’ then the group can be given five min- utes to construct a list of channels (set a rough target - ‘you should get seven or eight’). A group working well together could even be left alone again, to work through its list of channels and decide in each case whe-

88 0 Political Studies Association 1994.

Politics (1994) 14(2) pp. 83-90 Small Group Teaching b Bruce Wood and Michael Moran

ther Gorbachev’s emergence made any differ- ence. Almost the whole of a very effective tutorial can be conducted without your pre- sence in the room for more than ten or twenty minutes!

This approach can also extend to answer- ing a whole question on the board: appoint a ‘scribe’ to write on the board; encourage/ guide the whole group into constructing a plan of main headings for an answer; &vide the group into small sub-groups, with respon- sibility for filling out particular headings, allowing them ten minutes. Then the sub- groups ‘report back, the scribe summarising their answers on the board. In the last five minutes of the tutorial you can ‘review’ the result, as if it were an essay, pointing out possible weaknesses or omissions but not forgetting to maintain morale by praising the strengths of the Group’s answer. This method produces wide participation, gives the group a sense of having accomplished a common task, and allows you to comment on sub- stance and structure in essay construction. The disadvantages are that some may ‘free- ride’, and that the ‘answers’ may be poor and even misleading. Your guiding hand is important in this exercise, and should be used early on to ensure that the plan of main headings is reasonably coherent and compre- hensive.

It is also possible to combine any of the above formats with more marginal devices, designed in particular to ‘break the ice’ and encourage participation. These include:

- talking to your students! In every tutorial there are a ‘dead’ few minutes at the start while everyone is assembling. Don’t use it to do your own work. Ask the early arrivals about things: how the lec- tures are going; what they did at the weekend. Be nosey; it encourages rap- port.

- brainstorming. Useful for ‘warming up’ a sluggish or shy group. In two minutes at the start, the group has to call out as many words as possible connected to

the topic at hand. The key rule is that everyone must call out something. Thus even the shyest student has broken the ice.

- lecture summaries. Nominate a student to give a 4-minute summary of the last lecture. This develops skills in compre- hension and presentation. It also tells you what your colleagues are talking about; or, if you are lecturing, it gives you an idea of what is getting across to students.

- end of tutorial summaries. Appoint a ‘secretary’ at the start whose job it is to make a short precis of the discussion at the end. This is often done badly, but it helps develop key skills in note taking and presentation, and it ‘wraps up’ the discussion. When it is done particularly badly, three or four short statements or sentences from you can quite unobtm- sively retrieve the situation by getting across your version of the key points.

Beware of spontaneity For even the most naturally gifted of commu- nicators, tutorial teaching is hard work. Equdy, however, it can be highly rewarding. To see ‘your’ students develop their con- fidence, their verbal skills and their knowl- edge of politics is always a morale-boosting experience. In getting the shy, silent student to speak, the idler to work, the absentee to attend, and the dominant student to increase his or her self-awareness, the effective Tutor has much to be self-congratulatory about. But such successes do not come easily. In parti- cular they cannot be achieved in an uncertain atmosphere. Every tutorial needs routines and ‘rules’. Diverting from those rules is occasion- ally constructive, but continual spontaneity creates uncertainty, even anarchy, and is best avoided. Before each meeting even the experienced tutor needs to take time out to prepare - not the material or subject matter,

0 Political Studies Association 1994 89

Small Group Teaching 0 Bruce Wood and Michael Moran Politics (1994) 14(2) p p . 83-90

but the approach and aspirations for the meeting.

minutes well spent.

References

Moran, M. and Wood, B. (1991), Teaching Pofitks; A Survival Guide for Beginners, Manchester Papers in Politics 8/91.

Political Studies Association. (1993), PSA News, Winter 1993.

As little five minutes of thought are

0 Political Studies Association 1994.