The Effect of Small Group Tutors on Student Engagement in the Computer Laboratory Lecture

Main Article Content

Frances Shiely
Marian McCarthy


Background: Student engagement is widely recognised as being influential on learning and achievement in higher education. What is less clear is how the knowledge transfers, i.e., the process of engagement by the student with any new forms of teaching demonstrated by the teacher. Aim: To investigate the effect of small group tutors on student engagement in the computer laboratory lecture. Methods: Participants were undergraduate, second year BSc Public Health students taking the Health Information Systems II module. Teaching consisted of 12 x 2-hour face-to-to face classes. Tutors were assigned to groups of 6/7 students from weeks 5-12. Quantitative data from the Irish Survey of Student Engagement was collected in week 12 and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Qualitative data from a 1-minute pre-and post-module CAT, tutor post lesson appraisals and two focus groups (one student and one tutor group, respectively) were analysed thematically. Findings: This study provided evidence that student engagement and learning was indeed enhanced by the addition of small group tutors in the computer laboratory lecture. In addition, students’ attitude to engaging with their programme of study improved and their positivity towards learning increased as the term progressed. Furthermore, there was evidence of an improved student experience and improved personal development that was highly valued by the students.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Shiely, F., & McCarthy, M. (2019). The Effect of Small Group Tutors on Student Engagement in the Computer Laboratory Lecture. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(2).
Author Biography

Frances Shiely, University College Cork

Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and HRB Clinical Research Facility


Angelo, T.A., & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbookfor college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A.W. (1985). Involvement the cornerstone of excellence. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 17(4), 35-39.

Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited (Vol. 1): Jossey-Bass San Francisco.

Bernstein, D. (1998). Putting the focus on student learning. The course portfolio: How faculty can examine their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning, 77-83.

Blythe, T. (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. The jossey-bass education series: ERIC.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Boyer, E.L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 49(7), 18-33.

Brew, A., & Ginns, P. (2008). The relationship between engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning and students’ course experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 535-545.

Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in education and teaching international, 44(4), 349-362.

Carini, R., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 8150-8159.

Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus‐based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.

Coates, H. (2009). Engaging students for success-2008 australasian survey of student engagement. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Coates, H. (2010). Development of the australasian survey of student engagement (ausse). Higher Education, 60(1), 1-17.

Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, T.M., & Murrell, P.H. (1993). A structural model of perceived academic, personal, and vocational gains related to college student responsibility. Research in Higher Education, 34(3), 267-289.

Drennan, J., O’Reilly, S., O’Connor, M., O’Driscoll, C., Patterson, V., Purser, L., & Murray, J. (2014). The irish survey of student engagement Engaging university students (pp. 109-125): Springer.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active learning in higher education, 5(1), 87-100.

Gordon, D., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2016). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice: CAST Professional Publishing.

Healey, M., Flint, A., & harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York, UK.

Hu, S., & Kuh, G.D. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309-332.

Hutchings, P., Huber, M.T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact (Vol. 21): John Wiley & Sons.

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L.S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10-15.

ISSE. (2015). The irish survey of student engagement: Results from 2015.

Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112-133.

Kahu, E.R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505

Krause, K.L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first‐year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.

Kuh, G.D. (2001a). Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the national survey of student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10-17.

Kuh, G.D. (2001b). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 126.

Kuh, G.D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from nsse: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32.

Kuh, G.D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683-706.

Lueddeke, G.R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and'teaching-scholarship'. Studies in higher education, 28(2), 213-228.

Lumpkin, A., Achen, R.M., & Dodd, R.K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49(1), 121-133.

Mann, S.J. (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 7-19.

Norton, L.S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities: Routledge.

Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E., & Moules, N.J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.

Pace, C. (1995). From good practices to good products: Relating good practices in undergraduate education to student achievement. Paper presented at the 35th Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum. Boston, 28–31 May.

Quaye, S.J., & Harper, S.R. (2014). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations: Routledge.

Roach, T. (2014). Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New methods to increase interaction and active learning in economics. International review of economics education, 17, 74-84.

Ruest, L.B., Svoboda, K.K., & Opperman, L.A. (2017). Student survey results on the integration of active learning exercises in a dental education self-learning setting. The FASEB Journal, 31(1_supplement), 576.513-576.513.

Schmidt, H., & Moust, J. (1995). What makes a tutor effective? A structural-equations modeling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Academic Medicine, 70(8), 708-714.

Schmidt, H., van der Arend, A., Moust, J., Kokx, I., & Boon, L. (1993). Influence of tutors' subjectmatter expertise on student effort and achievement in problem-based learning. Acad Med, 68(10), 784-791.

Shulman, L.S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 34(6), 36-44.

Silver, M., & Wilkerson, L. (1991). Effects of tutors with subject expertise on the problem-based tutorial process. Acad Med, 66(5), 298-300.

Steinert, Y. (2004). Student perceptions of effective small group teaching. Medical education, 38(3), 286293.

Terenzini, P.T., & Pascarella, E.T. (1991). Twenty years of research on college students: Lessons for future research. Research in Higher Education, 32(1), 83-92.

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11, 1-15.

Wiske, M.S. (1998). Teaching for understanding. Linking research with practice. The jossey-bass education series: ERIC.

Working Group on Student Engagement in Higher Education. (2016). Enhancing student engagement in decision making.