1. Parentalism and other pedagogies to promote student success when learning quantitative methodologies – an action research approach Dr John E. Goldring Dr Julie Scott Jones

2. Some Key Student barriers to learning QM A-Level Sociology is QM-lite Sociology viewed as non-number ‘What is the point of this’? ‘Numbers anxiety’ (‘its maths’!) Numbers proficiencies/deficiencies Lack of QM proficient (or interested) staff

3. Practice of Social Enquiry (PSE) 2011-12 Core for all year 2 UGs Cohort size (217) 50/50 – quantitative (term 1) qualitative (term 2) Hands off approach No lecture 2 hour lab session Poor student engagement (even for qualitative) Variously skilled/inexperienced tutors Submissions and progression rate low – Low student satisfaction Intervention needed – Action Research approach adopted – flexible, reflective, adaptable.

4. Becoming a Social Researcher (BSR) 2012-13 New core methods unit (250 cohort) – replaced PSE Dept. commitment crucial – Extra contact hours – Re-introduced lecture (overarching narrative) Qualitative (term 1) quantitative (term 2) Try anything, everything to engage cohort in lecture; noticed learning styles gendered – Dedicated teaching staff – ESRC research to up-skill all tutors - TCP Additional support for new tutors – No labs cancelled – Regular contact via email/VLE

5. Parentalism? Analogy – not a theory Eclectic mix of pedagogic practices promoting student engagement and success Focus – student/tutor transaction, relationship and interactions – Acknowledge power differential – Students are not the enemy – Build trust – be approachable and available – Clear expectations (tutor and student) – Adapt to students (Zepke and Leach2005) Cultivate autonomy – Nudges to promote lifelong learning Do not assume prior knowledge on QM NOTE: Tutor practices central to parentalism (not student practices)

6. QM Threshold Concepts Let’s find out what they actually know…(maths test)… Assumed knowledge/understanding paradox Concept testing – in lecture/lab – Disparity between what is stated and what is actually known Threshold Concepts (Meyer and Land 2003) - Identifying ‘trouble knowledge’ (many levels) – Discursive hostilities – a call to cease fire – What is theory? – But why are we doing this? – Types of variables – Decimal points – 0.0 rule – Strength of association (Cramer’s V) Concept testing – the sequel (formative assessment)

7. Tutor/Student transaction Register and regular contact Submission checks and contact Additional support around submissions – Week 1 6 hours additional lab session 85 email request for support – Week 2 17 hours additional lab session Double up tutors in scheduled labs (where possible) 158 email request for support – Support for all levels – targeted labs Check VLE – after assignment released

8. Measuring success in BSR Attendance – high in both labs and lectures (70%+) – Is attendance,engagement? – Student engagement – last 2 weeks – Other core units – low (10%) – Unit score increased (3.70 form 3.74), higher ISS response rate. 77% satisfied. On time submission for QM work 90% – Range of marks – Student effort – most attempted elaboration – ‘I get this now!’ ‘I might do this for dissertation’… – From tears, tantrums, to success - student self belief? Some students’ favourite unit (on dear)

9. Issues Balancing conceptual/technical Labour intensive – Requires work loading (and institutional commitment) Fine line between autonomy – dependence Tutor/student transaction – marking issues Changes to working practice?