Paul Greenbank Edge Hill University

An Examination of the Factors Influencing Student Participation in Collaborative Approaches to Examination Preparation Paul Greenbank Edge Hill University

Introduction • Collaborative (peer) learning involves students ‘learning with and from each other’ (Boud, 2001) • Variety of contexts • Examination: Managerial Decision-making (MDM)

This paper focuses on: • Factors influencing the level of student participation in collaborative learning • How barriers to student engagement in the process might be overcome

Research methodology • Action research (from 2001) • Participative action research • Participant-observation

Collaborative approaches to examination preparation • Earlier stages in the research identified the need to address: • Student values • Group working skills • Networks

Initiatives to address these issues are now firmly established on BSc. Business & Management programme • Evidence indicates they have been successful • Nevertheless, a significant number of students still choose NOT to participate in the collaborative learning process

Three key reasons for this: • The opportunity and ability to collaborate varies between students • Negative experiences of group working militate against collaboration • A lack of time, approaches to study and satisficing behaviour act as potential barriers to collaboration

1. Opportunity/ability to collaborate • Students from other programmes feel disadvantaged • Unfamiliar • As one student said: • ‘People have done this sort of thing before. You feel a little out of it, and I don’t know, you feel that you are behind in some way’.

Networks • As an information systems student said: • ‘Because I’m not from the business degree I don’t really have any friends to ask. I am too shy to ask other members of the class. I felt I would have learnt more from group work – it just wasn’t easy to get done. I felt left out’.

Response • Additional (targeted) support • Interventions have achieved mixed results

2. Negative experiences of group work • Students choose not to engage • Typical student comments: • ‘I prefer to work alone’ • ‘I simply prefer individual learning’ • The decision to work alone appears to arise out of negative experiences of group working

Problems included: • Socialising and its affect on performance • ‘I didn’t feel group collaboration would be one-hundred per cent useful because it would turn into a social gathering. When working in groups nothing gets done’. • Distribution of benefits • ‘I know this sounds big headed [but] the others are going to get more from me and I’m not prepared to just give them this, if you like knowledge, and these sort of insights that I might have’. • Free-riders

3. Time, approaches to study and satisficing behaviour • Gap between intention and practice • Pressure of time was the main reason provided by the students • However: • Commuting time averages half-an-hour • Most term-time work takes place in evenings/weekends • Class time made available

‘Real’ reasons for not collaborating • Other priorities • ‘Serial approach’ to study • Satisficing behaviour • Response: appealed to their instrumental values

Conclusion • When introducing collaborative approaches our experience suggests you need to: • Address the question of equity in access to collaborative learning • Encourage rather than force students to collaborate for exams • Work with existing values to improve participation in collaborative learning

Paul Greenbank Edge Hill University