Brief outline of a sigma funded project where PhD students supported first year Psychology students' development of stats skills.

1. Establishing a discipline-specific
stats support workshop provision
What we did….
Sarra Saffron Powell

2. Responded to a call for funding
Collaborative interdisciplinary approach:
• Professor Damian Clancy – School of Maths (sigma contact and budget
holder –a “sleeper” role)
• Dr James Cruikshank – School of Psychology (engage students and
colleagues with the initiative/room bookings)
• Dr Janet Strivens – Educational Developer (evaluation)
• Sarra Saffron Powell – Educational Devloper/eLearning technologist
(pedagogy, sigma hub co-ordinator, now steering committee )
• Two critical friends to the project (Lesley Fletcher LJMU, Colin Steel
Manchester University)
• Psychology PhD students.
• …but you don’t need all of these people!

3. Institutional provision
• Resource (budget) already allocated to Schools to
support students stats skills development – but
limited evidence of rigour (i.e. effective
pedagogical practice, impact, evaluation, student
engagement)
• Wanted to access that resource and reposition it
to ensure sustainability and evidence impact of
student learning/enhanced student experience

4. • We wanted students to feel supported. For
maximum efficacy of provision that support
should be in discipline specific contexts.
• UoL Key strategy: enhancing the student
experience

5. Focus where students need support
Psychology PhD post
grads (x5)
Psychology Level 2
•Registered
students
•Logged
troublesome
areas
•Identified
useful
resources
We knew there were key
“crisis areas” in student
understanding and
application of stats
Identified online
learning
resources
•Elicited
feedback form
students
(evaluation )
PhD’s training
on supporting
students
learning
Online
diagnostic
“Drop in”
workshops
Systematic implementation of a peer learning approach = effective learning (Boud,
Cohen, Samson, 2001)

6. PhD tutor training
• PhD tutors very good understanding of student issues
(been there, wrangled with it) in discipline context
• Training to ensure they developed student skill and
enhanced learning rather than “doing it for them”
• two Educational Development mentors
• Two PhD students went on to also teach on CEd stats
courses
• In class review of teaching (Janet Strivens)
• Were offered ‘Teaching for Researchers’ CPD (Eddev)

7. Provision
• Drop in workshops (teaching colleagues to
direct students to it)
• Consulted teaching colleagues to identify
‘troublesome areas’
• 5 x PhD students identified useful (usable)
resources
• Student ‘I don’t know what my problem is’
problem – needed help in identifying difficulty

8. Provision
• = resource rich environment
• Students benefitted from a variety of
perspectives and learning styles (other
students, PhD tutors not just one lecturer)
• Online provision – just identified existing
resources (lots) made available and indexed (=
accessible)

9. Getting the students in
• Attendance endorsed and advised by lecturers
(important)
• Posters, email, assignment feedback
• Word of mouth (very important, comes with
time)
• 6 session planned – 3 delivered = 75 students
attended
• Timing of session needs to be mapped against
curricula (assessment and troublesome areas)for
maximum impact

10. Costings
• Initial sigma funding £8,000 (match funded by
UoL)
but this approach is very cheap!
• Costs about £6,000 a year (12 sessions) £900 for
web/database designer
• If one student stays on course – pays for itself for
several years
• Potential impact in Departmental NSS student
satisfaction

11. Advice
• Block room book!
• Anticipate unidentified ‘troublesome areas’
• PhD tutor dynamics may need monitoring – encourage
reflective practice
• Ensure evaluation processes built in from the start
• Aim for best practice re quality assurance issues
• Accrue student feedback (evidence)
• Be prepared to identify and address curriculum
problem areas
• Blended approach is valuable (students can be referred
to online resources whilst waiting)
• Identify problems – delivery of themed sessions

12. Evaluation
• Student feedback was excellent
• Valued peer learning environments – “tutors
understand the problems, they’ve been there”, “no
such thing as a stupid question”, “as someone who has
struggled, I now feel a lot more confident”
• Greater accessibility than personal/academic
tutors/lecturers
• Many students used sessions to peer review their work
• Requests for 3rd year workshops
• Future – map to assessment performance (ought to
improve!)
• Identify departmental NSS scoring/comments
• Also good form APR, review and audits

13. The end
• Happy to share as evidence base for proposals
sarrasaf@liv.ac.uk