Upperclass Focus Groups—Spring 2001—Summary

 

Following ten focus groups held with freshmen in spring quarter of 2001, five focus groups were held with upperclassmen from May 13 to May 16 of 2001. To achieve a bit of distance from their IHUM experience, we randomly selected students from the junior and senior classes, aiming for a total of 50 students. To encourage their participation in these groups, we offered $25 Bookstore certificates. Ultimately, only 27 students showed up, and the groups ranged in size from 2 to 7.

 

Facilitators for these groups were graduate students in the School of Education, trained for the task by Dr. Ann Porteus, their instructor in an Education School class on evaluation. Each focus group had a facilitator and a note-taker from the same group of grad students. The facilitators were responsible for writing up reports of views expressed in the focus groups.

 

Each group was supposed to discuss five questions in the course of an hour. These questions differed somewhat from those asked of the freshmen in their focus groups.

In what follows below, we attempt to present the main points which emerged in most discussions (as presented in the focus group reports).

______________________

 

 

1.      What did you like about your IHUM courses (both fall and winter/spring)? [what specific characteristics of the courses worked for you?]

 

The top two criteria mentioned by the frosh were also emphasized here:

·        The enthusiasm and dynamism of the lecturers

·        The ability to explore interesting (frequently classical) texts in depth, texts which students might not otherwise have read.

 

The next two were not emphasized quite as much by the frosh, but was almost as important to the upperclassmen as the first two:

·        The ability to have student-led discussion, with the Fellows exercising perhaps a catalytic role, but not a directive one.

·        The presence of teaching fellows effective as facilitators, helpers with writing, etc.

 

Other criteria for a good class, mentioned a little less often, included:

·        The importance of IHUM to frosh bonding.

·        The use of alternative media and field trips

 

Again, these things didn’t always happen in every course, but often enough to warrant frequent mention.

 

Other criteria mentioned a bit less often in these groups included having postdoctoral section leaders and linking class topics with students' own lives.

 

2.      How do you think IHUM courses could be made better? [Elicit specific, workable suggestions]

 

As with the frosh responses, sometimes a criterion that shows up less often in the answers to question #1 shows up in question #2 as being a desirable thing which, apparently, doesn't always happen. Thus one of the top four criteria the upperclassmen see as open to improvement is:

    • The topics of the classes, and literature read in them, should have some kind of clear relevance to today's world and the students' lives.

 

The other three most mentioned improvements upperclassmen desire are:

    • A clarification of the goals and expectations for IHUM and for the individual classes.
    • Shorter book lists (presumably mainly for winter/spring classes)
    • Shorter section times

 

Mentioned less often are smaller sections, more freshman-oriented lecturing by the faculty (too abstruse, too particular), and a faster turn-around of papers.

 

3.      In retrospect and with the wisdom of hindsight, has your evaluation of your IHUM experience changed since your freshman year? [If so, in what ways?]

 

Two of the focus groups were not totally helpful in this respect. In one case, they appear to have forgotten to discuss the question, in the other group (of seven students), reproduced in its entirety below, it's hard to tell whether opinions have improved, were always good, or have undergone other shifts:
  • Two students said that when they were in IHUM it seemed really hard and a lot of work, but now compared to their other courses it was easy.
  • Five students felt that IHUM was a good transition to college and a nice “buffer” to keep freshman from “overloading.” Everyone agreed that IHUM was stressful if you read everything that was assigned. Three students who were taking engineering classes liked how the writing and discussion of papers was different from their more technical classes.
  • One student said that he doesn’t care now about talking in class and getting graded. Other students said that getting to facilitate and lead section was different than in high school.
  • All students agreed that IHUM is a bonding experience and that they made friends in their IHUM courses through group projects and section.
  • Two students felt that sections were long but they didn’t seem long at the time, two other students thought that they were just too long. Other students said that IHUM sections were the only sections where they could talk and go off on tangents.

 

As for those three focus group that actually asked the question and quantified the results, we find that 8 students now have a more positive opinion of IHUM, 4 always liked it and haven't changed, two hated it and haven't changed. None have come to like it less.

 

4.      Did you learn skills in your IHUM courses (both fall and winter/spring) that you used in other courses at Stanford? [If so, please describe some of these skills.]

 

"College life skills", such as learning how one can skip classes, skim books, and pick TFs show up here as well as among the frosh. A couple of comments may reveal the extent to which this attitude, as well as the idea that one learns to "B.S." in IHUM, betray a kind of popular, group-oriented attitude rather than individual opinions (both are from the same focus group):

·        "Taught me how to bullshit – which comes in handy – same as academic bullshit curve – just how you write these things and learned to bullshit in section – discussion – not really bullshitting – learning how to get thoughts down on page."

·        " Most people joke about how IHUM teaches you bad skills – don’t really have to do any reading – teaches kids who were really diligent in high school that there are some classes that there is no need to read; to be fair – any college class will teach you what you need to read and what you don’t (general agreement)"

 

This was one of two focus groups that tried to give specific comments or quotes. Most of the other quotes emphasize writing and critical thinking, as well as specific content-oriented skills. Several examples:

·        Writing and critical thinking skills have been important in all the classes I take. I learned more about dissecting books and putting thoughts on paper which has been very necessary for every class at Stanford.

·        Gave me chance to do stuff I have never done because I am pretty techy – exposure to field that I wouldn’t have got otherwise. (2 students agreed).

·        We now know how to take other humanities courses. (Three students took more related courses because of IHUM, one took more for unrelated reasons.)

 

5.      Should Stanford have an Area One requirement in the first year? [why or why not? If not like IHUM, what should it be like?]

 

As we read the focus-group summaries, only one student was against having an Area 1 requirement in any form. Of the remaining students, a fair number would like to keep IHUM the way it is (when properly taught), but a majority would like to have it in a different form (including having separate courses all 3 quarters, combining it with the writing requirement, or only having one quarter required).

 

Final Comments on Upperclass Focus Groups:

 

To a great extent, these results reinforce the impression we carry from the frosh results. It's gratifying to know that students appreciate IHUM better in retrospect, if these small numbers are indicative. Perhaps one comment made in the upperclass groups might be foregrounded, since it emphasizes something that we know we really have to keep working on (though as indicated elsewhere in this report, sections are a particularly bright point in IHUM):

·        All students agreed that the main factor in their rating of the IHUM experience was dependent upon the perceived quality of their teaching fellow. Having a 'horrible TF would mean you’d have a horrible IHUM experience’.

 

 

Stanford University, 2003
http://www.stanford.edu/group/vpue/ihumrev