Design and organisation

I was aware of the fact that this first phase of my work was crucial, both for the research and for the success of the learning activity. I therefore put the greatest possible care in organising the meetings, also taking in account my limited experience in conducting group discussions and the anxiety that probably would have affected my action.

I had previously planned to ask one of my “critical friends” to support me during the focus groups, observing students behaviour and taking notes of non verbal signs of uncertainty, anxiety or boredom. This is recommended in literature (Moore, 2000), especially if the researcher is not a very expert one. However, I considered that students were just disoriented and uncertain about what they were expected to do during the meetings. The presence of two persons, one of them completely unexpected and unknown, would have intimidated students, who were likely to be restrained in their disposition to share thoughts and feelings. I therefore decided to conduct the focus groups without any help.

I also chose to organise meetings in a very open and flexible way. I defined a questioning route, but I also decided to let students talk, even about issues that were not strictly linked with pre-defined topics. In fact, I was trying to capture their experience; this exploratory phase did not permit me to know in advance which were, in students’ perception, the most important issues, in relation to the information seeking and research process. Furthermore, I needed to understand their experience of learning, to discover which approaches they preferred and which were, in their opinion, the major hindrances to their learning.

I divided my students into four groups of 5 people each, according to their availability in the dates planned for the meetings. Two students were interviewed individually, while two other students (full-time working students) were not available before the starting of the Seminar and it was not possible to interview them.

The meetings took place in a room near the Environmental Sciences library, which offers an adequate setting for group discussions, since it is furnished with a big oval table surrounded by a dozen of chairs. This room was chosen just because it is perceived by students as a “meeting” place, not as a classroom or a space devoted to examination. I booked the room in advance and checked the availability of electrical outlet needed for tape recording. The focus groups were planned to last about one hour and a half.

Two days before each meeting I sent students an e-mail containing general information about the meetings (Appendix 4. Reminder e-mail). I also defined the open ended questions that were to start the discussion, and checked the recording equipment.

82 5.2.5. The meetings

Each meeting started with a brief presentation of myself and of students, then I briefly explained the reasons for the enquiry and the importance of the research exploratory phase.

In particular, I presented myself as a teacher who was trying to improve her activity through a deeper understanding of students learning needs, and also as a Master student, involved in a piece of research. In fact, it was important that students perceived my interest towards them and towards their learning, not only as something related to my enquiry, but mainly as a responsibility that I felt as their teacher.

I tried to clearly explain the aims and objectives of my enquiry and presented action research as a method seeking to involve students in an active and participative way, valuing their opinions and feelings.

I listed the reasons why it seemed necessary to change and develop the Seminar “From the library to the Net”, and underlined that students’ co-operation in this research was likely to offer valuable suggestions to design a more effective learning activity.

Then I asked the permission to record the session, ensured anonymity and offered students to inform them about research findings. I also underlined that the participation in focus groups was absolutely voluntary and was not going to have any impact on student assessment.

I tried to adopt an invitational style and more than once I reminded students that there were not right and wrong answers to my questions: I was interested in knowing their opinions and expectations in order to find a better way to help them learn.

Since I had to balance the openness of questions with the need to focus on the research topic, I defined a limited number of questions, scaled from the more general to the more specific, leaving space for unexpected issues to emerge and to be discussed if they appeared to be pertinent and meaningful.

The first question was related to students’ way of experiencing learning at a University level. This was an introductory question, aiming to involve students and facilitate their participation. It also had the objective of identifying most relevant issues in relation to students’ learning.

You are starting your second year at University. How are you experiencing your studying and learning?

The main topic, related to students’ experience of information seeking and research process was divided into two questions:

Can you tell me how do you proceed when you are asked to carry out a piece of research related to your study?

And what do you usually do when you need to find some information for you daily life? Give me some examples….

I also aimed to understand students’ perception of the role of the library in their study and so I asked

How do you use the library, both here at the University and your local library?

Students’ expectations towards the following learning activity were the object of the final question

What do you expect from the learning activity that is starting on 4 October?

I finally asked for some more information without defining a particular topic

Is there anything else you believe it is important and that I omitted to ask you?

While at the beginning of the meetings students seemed a bit ashamed and disoriented, they showed their interest during my brief presentation and gradually became more relaxed and spontaneous while the discussion went on.

In the first group, I had to face a problem related to the dominating personality of one student, perceived by others as a leader. I therefore had to make an effort to allow all students express their opinion, while in the second group all students appeared quite shy and not inclined to share their thoughts. The third group was a very balanced one and the discussion went on in a fluent and pleasant way, without any particular problem. The fourth group required to be more strictly conducted. Students were lively and enthusiastic,

84

they seemed to have lots of things to tell and more than once I had to limit their exuberance.

I also interviewed two students individually, asking them the same questions. Interview did not appear a suitable method for the starting of the enquiry: students tended to provide very short answers, even to open-ended and general questions, and seemed much more uncomfortable and uncertain than students interviewed in a group situation. However, I considered important to have collected also their views, even if in a more difficult way.

5.2.6. Analysis

The tapes recorded during focus groups were immediately transcribed and analysed. I reported the questions and wrote a brief summary for each answer and for the following discussions. Then I grouped similar issues and defined topics and categories. I also put attention to the words used by students and reported exactly some phrases that seemed to me particularly meaningful for my enquiry. However, this analysis was only provisional, since I had the intention to compare my findings with what was going to emerge from the learning activity and from individual in-depth interviews.

5.3. Emerging findings

In this chapter I report what emerged from focus groups both as answers to pre-defined questions and as spontaneous and unforeseen statements of students, who often emphasised some topics and added new elements to the discussion route. I present findings grouping them in themes and quoting students statements when this can enlighten their perceptions and feelings. Pseudonyms are used to identify students.