E L I Z A B E T H H A Rt N E Y

Strategies for the management of lecturer stress in feedback tutorials

Keywords: feedback, lecturer stress, stress management, student emotion

. An action research approach was used to address the following research question. What approaches to providing students with feedback minimize lecturer stress? Data were collected using written feedback mark-sheets and a reflective diary. Findings indicated that negative expectations, student emotion, challenges from students and lack of control were identified as lecturer stressors and that a variety of strategies gleaned from recent literature were found to be effective in minimizing lecturer stress. Although shortcomings in the methodology of the study limit the generalizability of the findings, the action research provides a useful starting point for thinking about the impact of feedback strategy on lecturer stress.

Introduction

Lecturer stress

Early definitions of stress focused on the higher level of physical stimulation, also known as the 'fight or flight' response, that occurs in response to a threat [START_REF] Cannon | The Wisdom of the Body[END_REF], or to cope with events that cause stress, known as 'stressors' [START_REF] Selye | The Stress of Life[END_REF].These physical reactions were considered to be adaptive. Later definitions of stress emphasized the context and situations in which stress occurs, focusing on issues such as life events [START_REF] Holmes | The Social Readjustment Rating Scale[END_REF]. More recently, [START_REF] Lazarus | Stress, Appraisal and Coping[END_REF] developed the idea that stress does not simply happen automatically, but that we go through a complex series of 'appraisals' or judgements of the stress-inducing situation, which affect how 'stressed-out' we actually become. It is this process of appraisal that allows us to respond to stress in different ways. Each of these definitions provides insight into aspects of stress. For the purposes of the current study, stress is defined as the physical and psychological response experienced by a lecturer in reaction to perceived challenge or difficulty. Readers should note that the focus here is on negative stress as opposed to positive stress (or 'eustress'). For more details on the distinctions between positive and negative stress in teachers, refer to [START_REF] Hartney | How to Manage Stress in FE: Applying Research,Theory and Skills to Postcompulsory Education and Training[END_REF].

Research by HEFCE (2003) shows that stress from working in Higher Education is significantly greater than stress involved in working in other types of industry. Furthermore, of all higher educational institution employees, academic non-clinical staff (that is, lecturers) are the most stressed.This finding is supported by previous research by [START_REF] Blix | Occupational Stress among University Teachers[END_REF], which showed that university lecturers are significantly more stressed than support staff at the same institution, and as many as 66 per cent of university lecturers perceive stress at work at least 50 per cent of the time. Furthermore, university lecturers are significantly more stressed than medical school teachers [START_REF] Walford | Occupational Stress in Staff within Medical Schools[END_REF]. HEFCE's (2003) research identified work relationships as a major stressor for lecturers, and relationships with students have been identified by [START_REF] Taris | Inequity, Burnout and Psychological Withdrawal among Teachers: A Dynamic Exchange Model[END_REF] as being potentially stressful for teachers. A time when the studentlecturer relationship is particularly prone to provoking stress in lecturers is when the students' work must be criticized for feedback purposes, resulting in challenging or difficult behaviour from students [START_REF] Stough | Teachers' Emotions and Test Feedback[END_REF]. Lecturers may also be concerned that students will be upset by criticism or poor grades, a concern that has been substantiated by [START_REF] Young | I Might as Well Give Up": Self Esteem and Mature Students' Feelings about Feedback on Assignments[END_REF]. [START_REF] Young | I Might as Well Give Up": Self Esteem and Mature Students' Feelings about Feedback on Assignments[END_REF] research into mature students' feelings about feedback on assignments indicated that anxiety is universal among students submitting their first assignment, but that responses to feedback were related to self esteem rather than ability, grade received, and whether positive or negative comments were provided. Whilst students with high self esteem value all feedback, positive or negative, students with low self esteem will interpret even positive feedback negatively, indicating at the very least, a balance between positive and negative feedback is needed. However, in practice this can be difficult in cases of poor quality work, where many areas for improvement are identified, and very little positive feedback that can realistically be given. [START_REF] Young | I Might as Well Give Up": Self Esteem and Mature Students' Feelings about Feedback on Assignments[END_REF] research also revealed students' emotional responses to and attributions about feedback received. Students with high self esteem, despite feeling all feedback could potentially be acted upon, considered it to be the fault of the assessor if they did not get the mark they expected.

Effects of feedback on students

They also felt entitled to an explanation, tended to become angry rather than upset, and directed emotion at the assessor rather than at themselves. In contrast, students with low self esteem felt upset rather than angry, and would consider simply giving up rather than challenging the assessor. Both types of emotional response are likely to increase lecturer stress [START_REF] Stough | Teachers' Emotions and Test Feedback[END_REF]. [START_REF] Smith | Student Feedback Sensitivity and the Efficacy of Feedback Interventions in Public Speaking Performance Improvement[END_REF] argued that attribution theory, which is concerned with the way people attribute causality to events, is applicable to the process of providing students with feedback. Attribution theory is well established within social psychology, and the body of research into attribution theory has revealed various biases which are concerned with the individual protecting their own self image [START_REF] Weiner | An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion[END_REF][START_REF] Weiner | Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Theories of Motivation from an Attributional Perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Weiner | An Attributional Analysis of Achievement Motivation[END_REF]. Students vary in their attribution of the causes of outcomes of submitted work as either internal, that is, the causes lie within the students themselves, or external, that is, the causes of the outcomes are due to factors outside of themselves. [START_REF] Smith | Student Feedback Sensitivity and the Efficacy of Feedback Interventions in Public Speaking Performance Improvement[END_REF] argued that when feedback is critical of the work, learners are likely to blame the person giving the feedback (rather than to analyse the content of the feedback), whereas praise is typically internalized. This is consistent with other applications of attribution theory, in which people attribute causes in ways that minimize blame of themselves for shortcomings or failures, but that maximize taking personal responsibility for successes [START_REF] Hogg | Social Psychology[END_REF]. [START_REF] Stough | Teachers' Emotions and Test Feedback[END_REF] research questions whether feedback is even of benefit in all cases. Although teacher participants felt feedback was an important part of learning, both students and teachers interviewed felt that students' emotional reactions to the feedback could actually inhibit learning. Similarly, in their review of the literature, [START_REF] Smith | Student Feedback Sensitivity and the Efficacy of Feedback Interventions in Public Speaking Performance Improvement[END_REF] noted that in some circumstances, providing feedback to students may actually retard performance, particularly if it is overly harsh, negative and direct, thereby directing the students' attention to meta-task processes (such as self concept), rather than to the task itself. Furthermore, research has shown that teacher praise and feedback affects students in numerous ways, including their perceptions of the classroom environment, their relationships with their teachers, and student satisfaction [START_REF] Burnett | Teacher Praise and Feedback and Students' Perceptions of the Classroom Environment[END_REF].

Lecturer reactions to providing feedback

However, feedback is well-documented as a useful tool in the learning process. Indeed, learning theory, an important component of psychological theory generally, is based on the idea of feedback determining what is learned through 'reinforcement', and feedback has been shown to enhance learning by affirming accurate responses or correcting errors [START_REF] Thorndike | The Law of Effect[END_REF].

Evidence showing the importance of feedback in teaching and learning has been demonstrated in numerous research contexts, including teacher training [START_REF] Leach | The Additional Effects of Process and Outcome Feedback Following Brief In-service Teacher Training[END_REF], training mentally retarded students [START_REF] Van Vonderen | The Effect of Supervisory Feedback, Self-recording, and Graphic Feedback on Trainer Behavior During One-to-one Training[END_REF], and classroom learning [START_REF] Brosvic | Efficacy of Error for the Correction of Initially Incorrect Assumptions and of Feedback for the Affirmation of Correct Responding: Learning in the Classroom[END_REF].

Stough and Emmer's (1998) research is perhaps unique in its focus on lecturers' emotions in relation to providing student feedback. They conducted interviews with college teachers and their students, specifically focusing on the emotions experienced by teachers when providing students with feedback on assessed work. They found:

Teachers viewed feedback sessions as an opportunity to communicate knowledge and to improve student understanding in areas revealed as weak … [and] students profited from being involved in the process … however … students who made errors on exams often would, if allowed the opportunity, challenge the teacher and exhibit considerable resistance. Dealing with such challenges aroused a variety of negative emotions in these teachers, especially when students persisted, displayed emotion, refused to admit their own lack of understanding, or were supported by other students. The strategies developed by teachers in our study reflected their attempts to organize feedback sessions in ways that were consistent with their goals and beliefs, and yet limited their own frustration, annoyance, anger, anxiety, and related stress in response to the feedback session. (Stough and Emmer, 1998: 358) Stough and Emmer (1998) identified a variety of negative emotions experienced by teachers in this context. The emotions described by teachers included fear of conflict with students, anger at the students' response to feedback, and guilt, if the teachers felt they themselves had been inappropriately emotional. The teachers all had negative expectations about the feedback sessions, due either to past experience or to comments heard from other teachers. The teachers had strong expectations of negative reactions from particular students, often low achievers or high achievers who received a lower grade than was typical for them. The latter were actually considered more problematic, because of the high achieving students' skill in argument and unwillingness to accept teachers' explanations. [START_REF] Smith | Student Feedback Sensitivity and the Efficacy of Feedback Interventions in Public Speaking Performance Improvement[END_REF] explanation goes some way to elucidating the process by which students' reactions to feedback can affect lecturer stress. If the lecturer is focused on providing critical feedback, in the hope that students will learn from their mistakes, the lecturer may be inadvertently encouraging the students to blame the lecturer, rather than to take responsibility for improving their own work. This consequence may be expressed directly, by the student challenging the lecturer (for example, by arguing with or discounting negative feedback), or indirectly (for example, non-verbally through expression of negative emotions, or simply by failing to make improvements in performance in relation to specific feedback).

Providing feedback can cause lecturers both short-term and long-term stress. In the short-term, being faced with unhappy or angry students is stressful at the time of the interaction. In the long term, the end result of the lecturer's work in providing feedback being dissatisfied students who do not seem to learn, may leave the lecturer feeling that no matter how carefully areas for improvement are identified, the students fail to listen, care or take notice. Long-term stress can result from such negation of the lecturer's professional role.

It is not surprising, therefore, that providing students with feedback can result in lecturer stress. Taken together, the results of these studies indicate that the process of providing feedback to students is a delicate matter, which can have far-reaching consequences for lecturers as well as for students. The focus on lecturer stress is unusual, as typically lecturers are concerned with the well-being of their students, rather than their own well-being. Although it is apparent that providing students with feedback can sometimes be stressful, and may provoke emotional reactions in students and lecturers, little is understood about the relationship between providing students with individual feedback and how this might impact stress in lecturers.

This study poses the following question. What approaches to providing students with feedback minimize lecturer stress? This question will be addressed by looking at lecturer experiences of stress during feedback sessions, aiming to provide a better understanding of the issues contributing to lecturer stress within the lecturer-student relationship. Strategies implied by literature [START_REF] Stough | Teachers' Emotions and Test Feedback[END_REF] will be systematically applied and evaluated, in order to identify ways that lecturers can adapt their own feedback techniques in ways that reduce their own stress.

Methodology

The research was conducted and data were collected solely by the author. The research question sets out to identify what approaches to providing students with feedback minimize lecturer stress. This was addressed by exploring lecturer stress during feedback tutorials, before and after an intervention consisting of the use of feedback strategies suggested by the literature. The action research cycle comprised several sequential stages [START_REF] Bruner | The Process of Education[END_REF], and is described below as a three-stage process.

Stage one: pre-intervention

A group of approximately 180 first year psychology students completed a small research study and wrote up a lab report as a piece of research methods coursework. This was the third of four lab reports to be completed for this course. The course was taught by a team of tutors, each focusing on different aspects of the course (theory, statistics, and practical lab sessions). According to departmental policy, the coursework was marked by the students' personal tutor, who in the case of the researcher, was not responsible for any teaching on this course. As their personal tutor, the researcher marked the coursework of a sub-group of approximately 20 students, using guidelines provided by staff teaching the course, and providing written feedback to the students using standardized feedback marksheets (used by all personal tutors in the department, in order to ensure consistency). The feedback marksheets have two sections. The first section contains a series of criteria on which the work is rated, based on aspects identified departmentally as important components of written work.The second section is open-ended, and is intended for comments on the work. It is the contents of this second section that was adjusted and analysed in the current research.

Prior to the coursework being returned, informed consent was obtained from all students consistent with the BPS's ( 2004) ethical guidelines on research. The researcher then returned the coursework to students in individual feedback sessions, during which the student was given the work, told their mark (which was a composite of marks for each section of the report), and encouraged to read the written feedback and ask for clarification if necessary. The lecturer then explained further the rationale for any marking decisions or feedback comments in response to the students' questions. As soon as possible after each tutorial had been completed, the researcher recorded her own thoughts, feelings and experiences of stress during the tutorial in a reflective diary. The entries in the diary varied in length depending on the intensity and extent of emotion and/or stress experienced. The diary was used as a source of raw data, which were analysed qualitatively using grounded theory [START_REF] Glaser | The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research[END_REF].

Stage two: developing the intervention

Copies of the feedback mark-sheets provided to the students in the preintervention stage were analysed. At this point, strategies which may reduce lecturer stress were identified in the literature on feedback. These are summarized in Table 1.

Nine strategies were identified in total, although four strategies were considered to be more appropriate for change at the course or programme level, rather than the level of one-to-one dialogue, and so were not used in this study. These four strategies were presented to the department for consideration, and readers are directed to the source references listed in Table 1 for more details. An overview of each of the remaining five strategies used in the intervention is provided below.

Masking

This was a strategy used by lecturers in [START_REF] Stough | Teachers' Emotions and Test Feedback[END_REF] study, in which the lecturer conceals their own emotion behind a 'mask' of a neutral, calm facial expression and body language. Masking is helpful in tutorials in several ways. Firstly, it provides a model of how to behave in tutorials, demonstrating leadership on the part of the lecturer. Secondly, it prevents the dialogue from escalating into an argument or inappropriately emotional exchange. Thirdly, it protects the lecturer from appearing vulnerable in front of the student, thus reinforcing credibility.

Low intensity feedback

This was a strategy found to be effective by [START_REF] Smith | Student Feedback Sensitivity and the Efficacy of Feedback Interventions in Public Speaking Performance Improvement[END_REF], in which brief, indirect, moderate language was used in communicating feedback. This strategy was used on the written feedback marksheets as well as 85 (written) (2) Action plan [START_REF] Young | I Might as Well Give Up": Self Esteem and Mature Students' Feelings about Feedback on Assignments[END_REF] 'Depersonalize' -comment Action research on the work, not the student (written) [START_REF] Mutch | Exploring the Practice of Feedback to Students[END_REF] Teach students how to use Course/Programme* feedback *Course/Programme refers to recommendations which were developed when a strategy was identified that was appropriate for a change at course/programme level.

H A RT N E Y: M A N A G E M E N T O F L E C T U R E R S T R E S S
in the tutorial. This strategy was helpful in providing the information in simple, straightforward language that the student could readily understand, without being distracted by struggling with ambiguous meanings, ideas that were beyond their current level of knowledge and ability, or force of argument. It also prevented the student's emotional responses being triggered by provocative language. This is contrary to the belief that some lecturers have, namely, that force of argument will have a greater impact on students and will jolt them into taking the feedback seriously.

Decrease negative feedback, increase general praise, effortrelated and ability feedback

These approaches were, in combination, implied by the findings of [START_REF] Burnett | Teacher Praise and Feedback and Students' Perceptions of the Classroom Environment[END_REF]. It should be pointed out that there is not necessarily a reduction in feedback overall, but rather, that negative feedback is balanced with positive feedback, and negative feedback is presented more efficiently while still identifying areas for improvement. This strategy is helpful because it makes the feedback more accessible to students. Being drawn in by praise for the work they have done, they are more able to appreciate areas for improvement. As with 'low intensity' feedback, it is more effective to provide brief points on what needs to be changed that students will pay attention to, than to provide elaborate, exclusively critical feedback that fails to acknowledge any success on the part of the student, and simply makes them feel they have wasted their time and effort. It should be noted that many students also find negative feedback humiliating, so the more it is balanced by acknowledgement of what they have done well, the more likely they are to engage with the process of trying harder next time.

Present feedback in terms of strengths and an action plan

This style of presentation is based on the work of [START_REF] Young | I Might as Well Give Up": Self Esteem and Mature Students' Feelings about Feedback on Assignments[END_REF]. This strategy is helpful in several ways. Firstly, it provides a balance between positive and constructive feedback consistently across students. Secondly, it is sensitive to the students' feelings, making them less likely to become inappropriately emotional. Thirdly, rather than being a once-and-for-all judgement on the students' work, it reinforces the idea of feedback as part of a learning process, and focuses the student on taking a positive approach to future work. [START_REF] Young | I Might as Well Give Up": Self Esteem and Mature Students' Feelings about Feedback on Assignments[END_REF] observations also indicated this strategy, meaning the lecturer should comment on the work, not on the student.This is important in both protecting the students' self esteem, and in helping the student to recognize that negative feedback is not personal criticism, but objective commentary on a piece of work. Related to this is developing the students' belief that the learning process is dynamic, and that their work can be improved next time if feedback is taken on board. It is all too easy, however, for lecturers to fall into the trap of personalizing work in an attempt to draw the student in, using commentary such as: 'You need to do more reading', or 'You need to include more analysis', rather than alternatives such as: 'The introduction would be improved by a broader literature review', or 'The argument would be strengthened by more analysis'.

Depersonalize feedback

Stage three: implementing and evaluating the intervention

The same group of first year students completed another piece of coursework, the fourth of four lab reports for the same research methods course, in the normal way.The researcher marked this in the normal way, using the guidelines provided by teaching staff on the course, but the feedback provided on the open-ended section of the feedback marksheets was modified according to the intervention strategies described above. The procedure used for marking work according to these strategies was quite straightforward, and was largely a matter of style. The blank section of the feedback form for comments was divided into two equal sections (thus balancing positive and negative feedback). Each section was given a brief title, the first being 'Strengths', the second being 'Action Plan'. Within each of these two sections, points were included in bullet form. Both praise and suggestions for improvement were matched to the department's criteria for the classification of degree work, and comments related to how well the work demonstrated meeting or failing to meet these criteria. For example, for poorer work, in the pre-intervention stage little or no praise was given, but in the action research intervention, comments such as 'The work demonstrates an effort to focus on the topic set', and 'The report is of the correct length' acknowledge the fact that the student has made efforts to meet the basic requirements, although those efforts might appear minimal to the lecturer. This meant that students were being acknowledged for aspects of their work that are often overlooked or taken for granted by markers.

It should be noted that feedback was not limited, as comments continued to be written directly on to the script (although the new style of language was used).Therefore, students did not miss out on information they needed. Furthermore, students were reminded of the departmental criteria for grading work, which was included in their handbook. The action research process was then discussed with a critical friend [START_REF] Mcniff | You and You Action Research Project[END_REF], prior to meeting with students in tutorials and providing feedback on written work.

All students who attended tutorials to collect their work were provided with verbal feedback using the intervention strategies. The effectiveness of the strategies was evaluated in relation to students' responses to, and readiness to accept, feedback, and lecturer stress, which were again recorded as thoughts, feelings and experiences of stress in the reflective diary. As the focus of the research was the lecturer's experience, rather than that of the students, data were not collected on the students' experiences of the tutorials. This decision was intended to avoid adding any complications to the process of giving feedback, which would be introduced if students were asked about their feelings and perceptions. For example, if a student had received a poor grade, and was then asked to reflect on their feelings about the feedback session, it would be very difficult for that student to separate their feelings (such as disappointment, frustration, embarrassment, etc.), from their feelings about the session itself, and asking students to do so may have invalidated the findings by introducing more emotion into the interaction. Furthermore, there are additional ethical concerns which are raised by encouraging students to reflect on their feelings, particularly if those feelings are negative.

Finally, the data recorded on the feedback sheets before and after the intervention were analysed using content analysis on the work of six students.This sample consisted of those students who had attended tutorials to collect coursework on both occasions (pre-intervention and intervention). The content analysis was similar to that of [START_REF] Mutch | Exploring the Practice of Feedback to Students[END_REF], using categories identified in the literature which were extended to include categories which accounted for a large proportion of the written feedback. This was used to examine the change in types of feedback used before and after implementing the strategies.

Results

Pre-intervention

Four themes focused on stressors emerged from the data recorded in the reflective diary, which are presented in Table 2, along with examples of each.These four stressors were: negative expectation of the tutorial, student emotion, challenges from students, and lack of control.

Negative expectation of tutorial

This theme relates to the lecturer's awareness of her own stress levels rising even before the tutorial had taken place. This anticipatory stress was observed by the lecturer, in response to thoughts or sensory input related to the impending tutorial. In the example given in Table 1, the student concerned was one who had been consistently demanding throughout the lecturer's relationship with them. However, the identification of stress occurring even prior to the tutorial beginning, shows that the lecturer is primed to become more stressed in the event of challenges from the student.

Student emotion

This theme relates to any negative emotion of the student perceived by the lecturer. Two contrasting emotional responses are presented in Table 1, boredom and distress.The lecturer could not ignore these expressions of emotion, as an individual tutorial is concerned with counselling a student academically, and thus requires attention to be paid to the responses of the student to feedback.The lecturer's goal is to support and encourage the student, but the lecturer was met with a negative emotional response. Being non-verbal in nature, this negative emotional response had the effect of communicating defensiveness, disapproval or disagreement to the lecturer (without the student taking responsibility for this communication).This left the lecturer feeling uncomfortable with the interaction, and dissatisfied professionally.

Challenges from students

This includes direct disagreement, excuses, and arguments against negative feedback being suggested by the lecturer. This was most frustrating when a student was more concerned with defending their poor work than with learning how to do better next time, as it negated the purpose of the feedback.

Lack of control

This theme tended to come up in relation to occurrences of the student not respecting boundaries set by the lecturer. The example in Table 1 occurred when a student demanded more time than was allocated to them, causing the lecturer to become increasingly stressed with the growing awareness of keeping the other students waiting.

Post-intervention

A comparison between the content of feedback before and after implementing strategies is presented in Table 3. The content analysis shows an overall reduction in occurrences of negative feedback by more than half, with 32 pieces of negative feedback being given prior to the intervention, and 14 being given after the intervention. In contrast, positive feedback doubled, with only 4 pieces of positive feedback being given prior to the intervention, and 8 being given afterwards. Nonetheless, it should be noted that there is still much more negative than positive feedback. After the intervention, specific criticism has been completely replaced by advice, which is still the most commonly given form of feedback. The number of comments referring directly to the student has decreased considerably, with an increase in comments referring to the work. General praise, effort related and ability related feedback remain the weakest areas in terms of feedback provided. The analysis revealed an additional issue that may be counter-productivethe use of double sentences, where a criticism was added on to praise. On reflection, this was intended as an attempt to provide balanced feedback. However, it could have the opposite effect by negating the effect of the praise.

Brevity and indirectness were important to low intensity feedback, therefore the overall reduction in feedback volume, along with proportionally greater indirect feedback in relation to specific criticisms, are interpreted positively.

Students responded positively to the changes in feedback, and there was no lecturer stress reported in the reflective diary once the strategies were used.

Discussion

The results showed that the strategies identified in the literature to giving written feedback to students impacted positively on lecturer stress, as the tutorials were perceived as highly stressful prior to the intervention, and not stressful after implementing changes to the style of feedback. Overall, the increase in positive feedback and improved balance between positive and negative feedback characteristics made the experience of giving feedback more enjoyable. In addition, students in receipt of the feedback seemed more satisfied with their feedback and did not present any challenges during or after the intervention. This supports the use of feedback strategies identified within [START_REF] Burnett | Teacher Praise and Feedback and Students' Perceptions of the Classroom Environment[END_REF], [START_REF] Smith | Student Feedback Sensitivity and the Efficacy of Feedback Interventions in Public Speaking Performance Improvement[END_REF], [START_REF] Stough | Teachers' Emotions and Test Feedback[END_REF] and [START_REF] Young | I Might as Well Give Up": Self Esteem and Mature Students' Feelings about Feedback on Assignments[END_REF], albeit collectively rather than individually.

Each of the strategies identified in the literature had the effect of addressing the stressors of student emotion, challenges from students, and lack of control by making the feedback process less emotional and provocative, and focusing the feedback on future work, rather than current deficiencies. Indirectly, this should have the effect, over time, of reducing the lecturer's negative expectations of tutorials, as past experiences are replaced with more positive experiences.

With widening participation, many first year students have to improve the quality of their work a great deal in order to produce work of the required standard in the second and third years of their degrees.The action plan focused on the main criteria needed to raise the grade by one classification, for example, from a fail to a third class pass, or from a third class pass to a lower second. Similarly, for higher quality work, for example, work of upper second class standard, positive feedback praised factors such as broad reading and critical analysis, whilst the action plan focused on raising the quality of the work to a first. In all cases, the wording used was simple, objective, moderate, and impersonal.

Challenges from students are often necessary during tutorials for students to clarify their understanding on issues where they feel they have had conflicting advice. However, there is a fine line between students clarifying their own understanding, and accusing the lecturer of giving incorrect or invalid feedback. As with the more passive 'student emotion', often the stress is caused by what is implied rather than what is said, through nonverbal communication such as tone of voice, sarcasm and body language.

The tension between being flexible and responsive to the individual student's needs, with needing to meet the other students' needs can be stressful to the lecturer. Setting boundaries is particularly important with students who do not respect them, because as adults, students must be negotiated with rather than directed.

However, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the observations reported in this study, as they were confounded by the fact that the post-intervention assignment was the final piece of work being returned to students, so there was less pressure on students to understand and incorporate feedback than there had been previously. Furthermore, the lower stress levels experienced may have been a function of student learning from the earlier feedback session rather than simply a result of improved feedback practices. In addition, with the focus of the action research being lecturer stress, it should be noted that as the final feedback tutorials of the year, they were less stressful. Future research should take into account the waxing and waning of stress for students and lecturers throughout the academic year, and build in a process by which student learning and adaptation to the feedback process is taken into account. One potential remedy would be to use a split-half approach, whereby half of the sample received the intervention and the other half did not, and to compare the results of the two groups. However, this raises ethical concerns regarding the potential consequences for students and their grades.

A related weakness of the current research is that students were not actively involved in the research. Feedback was adapted from the lecturer's point of view, and no data were collected from students relating to their perceptions of the experience of receiving feedback. It is not possible to claim to be less biased in my reflective point of view than the students would be [START_REF] Winter | Some Principles and Procedures for the Conduct of Action Research[END_REF]. Furthermore, the tendency to introspection arising from reflective practice can 'lead to incapacitation, the potential to neglect the objectives of study in favour of a reflexive commentary … and the difficulty of understanding and developing self-awareness' (Waterman, 1998: 104). Without active student involvement, the research is not truly collaborative. This could be overcome in future research by collecting and cross referencing data from both lecturers and students, an approach which proved effective when used by [START_REF] Stough | Teachers' Emotions and Test Feedback[END_REF]. However, as stated previously in the methodology, the research process itself would be affected by students being encouraged to reflect on their experience of the tutorial, and this may also affect the student-lecturer relationship, thus impacting on post-intervention findings.

The grounding of the research in a specific work-site context limits its generalizability [START_REF] Denscombe | The Good Research Guide[END_REF]. In addition, the small sample size used in the current study can only provide a very limited snapshot of the effectiveness of the intervention. A more in-depth study with more rigorous data collection techniques and a larger sample size would be required to demonstrate whether the intervention was truly effective. Furthermore, the results indicated support for the feedback strategies collectively, rather than individually. Further research would be needed to determine how individual strategies are effective, and the ways in which they are effective. Again, including a student sample to provide an evaluation of each strategy would be helpful in this regard.

A final area of research which would build on the current study concerns lecturer characteristics. Many individual differences between lecturers may impact on the extent to which they experience stress whilst providing students with feedback. Possible variables include personality, self esteem, and number of years' experience. The use of quantitative methods, such as validated instruments for the measurement of stress and other variables, would be more conducive to hypothesis testing.

Despite an appropriate level of caution in interpreting the findings, from a professional point of view, the findings provide a starting point for lecturers to think about and adapt their practices in giving feedback. As well as incorporating the strategies described above, it may be helpful for lecturers to consider how their own responses to feedback as students may have affected their current views of the process. After all, those students who go on to become lecturers are not representative of students in general. Many academics, as students, adapted well to the rigours of higher education, and yet many of their current students, particularly those who are not so well adapted to the expectations of academic life, may have entirely different needs, preferences and learning styles. If, for example, a lecturer had a positive approach to receiving feedback, they may find it difficult to relate to students who do not collect their work or respond to feedback, resulting in negative and possibly inaccurate judgements of students' motivations, poor student-lecturer communication and increased lecturer stress.

In conclusion, lecturer stress in feedback tutorials appears to be directly related to the strategies used by the lecturer in giving feedback, both verbally and in writing. A number of strategies for giving effective feedback whilst minimizing lecturer stress were adapted from the literature, and effectively utilized in providing students with feedback on assignments. While more detailed research is needed to verify these findings, the research presented here provides a useful starting point for thinking about the impact of feedback strategy on lecturer stress, student-lecturer relationships and potential impact on student learning. By incorporating these strategies into their feedback practices, lecturers can maximize the effectiveness of their feedback and reduce their own stress.

Table 1 Strategies for reducing lecturer stress whilst providing effective feedback

 1

	Source	Strategy	Implementation
	Stough & Emmer (1998) 'Masking' -teacher conceals	Action research
		own emotion	(in tutorial)
	Stough & Emmer (1998) 'Privatization' -student and	Course/Programme*
		teacher discuss feedback
		privately
	Stough & Emmer (1998) 'Structured feedback' -'answers' Course/Programme*
		are provided
	Stough & Emmer (1998) 'Discussion' -students talk	Course/Programme*
		in groups about feedback
	Smith & King (2004)	'Low intensity' feedback -use	Action research
		of brief, indirect, moderate	(written)
		language
	Burnett (2002)	Decrease negative feedback,	Action research
		increase general praise,	(written)
		effort-related and ability
		feedback
	Young (2000)	Present feedback in terms of:	Action research
		(1) Strengths and

Table 2 Lecturer stressors related to feedback provision

 2

	Stressor	Example
	Negative expectation of tutorial	'The second student, Mr A, was waiting
		outside as Ms D left, and as I heard them
		exchanging greetings outside my office
		my stress levels started to rise, even
		before Mr A came into the room.'
		14 March 2005
	Student emotion	'Body language -a lack of response or
		appeared bored or unengaged in the
		process … (eg. Ms B; Ms C).This included
		a lack of eye contact or a glazed expression,
		slumped posture, minimal response or
		comment.' 28 February 2005
		'While at first I found Mr A's apparent
		vulnerability reasonable, over time … they
		trigger feelings of being manipulated.
		Such characteristics include … [subservient]
		body language … whiny, pleading tone,
		as if he is being denied basic needs…
		Facial expressions [which] range from
		overly dramatic expressions of anxiety,
		to condescending disapproval, and
		the anger of the oppressed.'
		8 March 2005
	Challenges from students	'…every suggestion I make is discounted
		by the student, every comment challenged,
		thus turning the whole exercise into a long
		argument… he has … put enormous pressure
		on me to account for my own marking
		decisions and the University's systems.
		At the end, he does not demonstrate
		acceptance of what I have offered.'
		8 March 2005
	Lack of control	'My feelings of lack of control of the situation
		… he has wasted much of my time, and
		completely ignored the needs of me and other
		students. This makes me feel controlled by the
		student, rather than being in control. I then
		feel I have to apologise to any other students
		who have been kept waiting, when in fact
		I was pressurized into the delay.'
		8 March 2005

Table 3 Content analysis of occurrences of feedback characteristics before and after intervention

 3

	Feedback	Occurrences Occurrences	Example
	characteristic		before	after
		intervention	intervention
	Positive feedback
	General praise*		0	2	'Generally very good
					work' (Ms E)
	Specific praise †		3	5	'Good organization
					of the methods
					section' (Ms C)
	Effort related*		1	0	'A good effort on the
					intro' (Ms D)
	Ability related*		0	1	'Good understanding of
					theoretical issues
					demonstrated' (Mr A)
	Total Positive feedback		4	8
	Negative feedback
	Specific criticism †		12	0	'Your introduction is
					very unclear' (Ms C)
	Indirect criticism (advice) †	20	14	'Proof read prior to
					handing in' (Ms F)
	Total Negative feedback		32	14
	Other feedback
	characteristics
	Comment on student*		17	5	'Your results would be
					clearer if you reported
					each t-test separately'
					(Ms F)
	Comment on work*		2	12	'Any details of
					questionnaires should
					come under materials,
					not procedure' (Ms B)
	Double sentence		5	0	'Your discussion
	(praiseϩcriticism) †				meets minimum
					requirements, but is
					much too brief' (Ms B)

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the students who participated in this study, and Isle Towler and Dr Mitchell Longstaff of the University of Greenwich for useful discussion and comments on this work.


E P Ly N N

B A L Dw I N

Universities are tasked to fulfil many roles in society, and what is meant by 'academic life' is not a simple thing to define. It varies from country to country, institution to institution, and even from department to department within the same institution. For new undergraduate students, their view of a university is normally that it is an institution whose main function is teaching, and that lecturers are for the most part concerned with, and spend their time dealing with, issues related to learning and teaching.This is reinforced, in some ways, by the design of many university websites, where 'courses/ programmes' features prominently. First-year students often view a university as a kind of 'big school', the next one 'up' from that which many of them have recently left, far bigger in size, naturally enough, and all the more daunting for being so. They notice that new terminology such as 'lecturer', 'lecture theatre' and 'seminar' seem to be replacements for the familiar 'teacher','classroom' and 'class' of their high school days. However, as they slowly come to realize during the first term, a university is only in part a 'big school'. Puzzled faces at a department reception attest to their confusion as they are told that Dr X or Professor Y is not available for the next few days, or a week, as they are at a conference, or out on some research-related activity. For students, if 'lecturers' are 'teachers', but just with a different name in order to differentiate universities from schools, it is inconceivable to them that lecturers are not available all day every day in order to deal with their academic and/or pastoral concerns. When told that lecturers have only a one-or two-hour 'tutor hour' in which to see students during the working week, there is a growing realization that lecturers may not be dealing with learning and teaching issues all day every day, as was the case in their school. For those of us who teach students in their first term at university, one of the first issues to deal with is how we, as academics, should be addressed, and in what manner. The very first seminar demonstrates the confusion. Some put their hand up when they wish to say something, yet others say nothing, believing that hand-raising may not be the appropriate way to do so at university (it is a 'school thing'). However, if it is not hand-raising, then what to call the lecturer is the next hurdle. If their lecturer is Dr Sarah Andrews, should they call her Dr Andrews, Sarah or something else? Very often, 'miss' or 'madam', with no family name after it, the terminology used in schools, is selected, naturally enough.

Learning and teaching is at the core of a university. However, there is more, as students discover, very often to their amazement and, in some cases, with some concern. That 'more' is research. New students discover that lecturers have put themselves through a four-year (or more) programme of PhD-level study in order to be able to carry out effective research and that, for many, research is not merely a task such as preparing some lecture notes or dealing with a module-specific query but instead an absolute passion. After all, many lecturers could earn far higher salaries in industry or commerce, but choose to stay in academia for the sheer pleasure gained by carrying out the research work that they do. However much or little academic staff enjoy their research, it is these days an essential feature of academic life. Research performance and rankings of universities is the hot topic of the day in universities in the UK at the moment, as we gear up for the next round of 'assessment' of our performance. Like it or not, lecturers thus need to strike the appropriate balance between learning and teaching, and research, which is easier said than done.

Research is, however, not the preserve of academic staff. Indeed, core to most undergraduate programmes and to all postgraduate ones, is the requirement to carry out a significant piece of research.The final part of a programme involves some type of 'special project', which provides students with the opportunity to conduct an independent in-depth study related to their discipline. It is often regarded as the cornerstone of a degree programme, and as such is usually heavily weighted in terms of credits. As lecturers and PhDholders, the majority of us have been recruited for our research skills and abilities, and so we know how to carry out/manage a piece of research. However, much as with driving, the ability to teach others to do so is another skill altogether. Being a brilliant driver does not necessarily mean that you will be a brilliant driving instructor, as students often learn to their cost when it comes to supervision.That said, it is our task to help our students to develop the skills and abilities needed in order to carry out a piece of research. In the first article, entitled 'Developing a research culture in the undergraduate curriculum', Joanne Garde-Hansen and Ben Calvert highlight the value of engaging students in the research work of lecturing staff. Commenting that whilst such collaboration is to be welcomed and encouraged, they rightly say that it involves a great deal of time and effort and that, in any busy environment, particularly those with limited resources, how to do so is a challenge. Setting out the advantages of such collaboration, the authors also point out the associated difficulties, not least of which is the potential mismatch in terms of student expectations of what a project, and a supervisor, is and is not. Central to the study described in the article is that students should be helped to develop the skills required in order to be independent and autonomous researchers. Using online focus groups, a conference and a problem-based learning activity, the study describes the issues involved with developing a research culture, and the changing perceptions of students about research as they progressed from one level to another. Working with others, rather than alone, is what students in this study found particularly motivating and productive.The authors conclude with some helpful, practical recommendations as to how this might be implemented elsewhere. Importantly, their message is that we need to do a great deal more to ensure that student research work is not merely another assessment task, as any other. Instead, their research work, like our own, needs to be 'celebrated' and valued.

Research work is, naturally enough, the very essence of PhD-level study. However, the authors of the second article, Anthony P. Bromley et al., note that although this involves a scholarly piece of research, there is a growing realization, and demand, that it should it should assist in the development of researchers who are (more) able to function effectively in today's fastevolving workplace. In their article, 'Investigating the baseline skills of research students using a competency-based self-assessment method', the authors note that whilst skills such as technical expertise and problemsolving are perhaps more readily developed through such a programme of study, there is evidence that those who have completed a PhD might perhaps lack the 'broader' skills such as communicating with, and working effectively with, others. This is perhaps unsurprising given that, in the UK at least, doctoral-level study is characterized as the 'lone scholar' approach. In this, budding researchers normally have only one-to-one contact with their supervisor, and on average only a few hours per month at most, although this varies according to the stage, naturally enough (more at both the beginning and the final stages, but less during the middle stages). Whilst there may be a few specially designed seminars or lectures at various points along the way, these are not compulsory in the 'traditional' PhD programme. Given that each researcher is working on their own individual piece of research (and each is different), it is small wonder, then, that such students experience a fair degree of isolation, however friendly the department or their supervisor and colleagues. However, as the authors rightly say, if we are to help our researchers to develop these 'broader' skills, we need first to find out their 'baseline' skills in order to both measure/assess any improvement at a later date but also in order to design an effective programme of study. Drawing on experience from industry, where such personal and professional development of the individual is standard, the authors describe two main approaches to such assessment, namely, training needs analysis and competence models. In their study, the authors describe the design and testing of their assessment methodology. Involving an online questionnaire whose design was informed by the skills and/or competencies identified by the 36 Research Councils, data were gathered from researchers who were in the first three months of their study. Taking account of factors such as age and home/overseas, the strengths and weaknesses of both individuals and of the cohort as a whole provide both interesting reading and useful information for the institution itself, as well as for those of us who wish to carry out such an activity ourselves.

Presenting our students with problems and helping them to develop the skills in solving them is one such 'transferable skill' necessary for both PhDlevel researchers and for undergraduate and postgraduate students alike. Now mainstream in higher education, problem-based learning (PBL) is said not only to help students to develop the task-specific skills of solving the problem(s) at hand but also to foster the 'wider social skills' which are valued not only in higher education but also in the workplace. Given the ubiquity of computer technology in the classroom today, most if not all of us use the technology, and PBL itself, to a greater or lesser extent. However, the authors of the third article, Peter Gossman et al., argue that there is a need for more evidence to support the claims about the perceived benefits of this approach to teaching. Entitled 'Integrating web-delivered problem-based learning scenarios to the curriculum', the study described in the article looks at how students' skills are or are not developed through using technology which supports PBL and whether or not it is more effective than a more 'traditional' approach. Given the perceived increase in time and effort associated with PBL, this is an important issue. Measuring 'gain', in terms of learning, is not without its difficulties, as the authors acknowledge. Whilst PBL often proves more popular with students given that they feel more engaged/involved in the task, something which the results of this study corroborate, there is more that we need to do in order to better understand its impact on learning and its advantages over the more 'traditional' methods which characterize higher education today, despite the (slow) move towards a more student-centred view of learning and thus approach to teaching.

Whether or not PBL fosters the development of the 'broader skill' of communicating effectively with others, this is a must, whether in the workplace or in higher education. Just as the computer has transformed how we engage with our learners both inside and outside the classroom over the last decade or so, other technology is now beginning to play a role in how we do so. The remarkable uptake of mobile phones in the UK (called cell phones in the USA and elsewhere) took many if not all of us by surprise. As the author of the fourth article 'Using text messaging to support administrative communication in higher education' reports, 88 per cent of people aged 15 to 34 owned or used a mobile phone at the time of the study, 2003. The article reports on a more recent survey, 2006, which reveals that 96 per cent of students own a mobile phone, with 86 per cent having used SMS (Short Message Service) or, as it is called in everyday usage, 'text messaging' or 'texting'.This technology looks set to be no short-term fashion or fad but instead a part of normal, everyday life. As being at university is part of this normal, everyday life, it is perhaps unsurprising that there has been a surge in interest in how we might harness such technology in learning and teaching in higher education. Laura Naismith, author of this fourth article, explains how this technology is used outside the higher education sector, and offers an insight into its potential for us, as educators, in helping our students to learn, citing studies which attest to its contribution and value. However, as the author says, its integration into the provision is not without its challenges, for both students and staff alike. The study described in the article details a case study of the implementation and subsequent testing of a text-messaging service. Analysis of the messages by type revealed how the service was actually used, and feedback from the students provided an insight into their perceptions of its value. Of note in this study is that the views of academic and administrative staff were also gathered, thus taking into account the views of all stakeholders in the system. As communication is a two-way activity, the results shed some interesting light on how textmessaging was, and was not, used in responding to communication from academic and administrative staff. Alerting us to the implications for practice in our own institutions, this study doubtless makes its contribution to an area of research activity which, like text-messaging itself, is destined to become mainstream.

Another of the 'broader skills' that we wish to develop in our students, and in ourselves, is effective self-evaluation; this is key to learning/ development. After all, if we do not recognize our strengths and weaknesses, we cannot build on the former or work on improving the latter. Evidence from the literature suggests that self-evaluation improves with time. One way in which we, as educators, assist students in understanding and evaluating their performance is via the feedback that we give them on their coursework or examinations. Marking is an enormously time-consuming task for us, even if work is submitted and returned electronically. If marking the work is not difficult enough, a further issue for those marking it is the detection of plagiarism. There is a perception, although little hard evidence it seems, that plagiarism is on the increase. As Stephan Dahl, author of the fifth and final article reports, we have taken various measures to try to combat this, including making students (more) aware of plagiarism, explaining (if we had not done so already) what constitutes plagiarism. In this article, entitled 'Turnitin ® : the student perspective on using plagiarism detection software' the author rightly notes that the issue of plagiarism is complicated by the fact that we are not too sure ourselves, and that even within the same institution, those in different disciplines view it, and deal with it, differently. However, when we suspect that a student may have plagiarized an amount of material, however great or small, technology is now available to assist us in ascertaining the source, or sources, of what is not the student's work. Without such evidence there is, rightly, no case of plagiarism for the student to answer, as they must be considered innocent until there is reasonable evidence to conclude that they are guilty of such a disciplinary offence.

As the penalty for plagiarizing work could result in expulsion, with no award, we need that evidence to be substantial and robust. Findings from the study described in the article suggest that students are very positive about its use.The study revealed that there were two noticeable effects since the introduction/use of Turnitin ® . One, it acts as a deterrent.Two, it prompts students to seek advice about how to reference correctly and thus avoid plagiarizing. Three, cases of plagiarism, whilst not eradicated, are reduced. As the author of the fourth article would likely agree, technology assists human decision-making and does not replace it, that is, we cannot rely solely on the 'judgement' of an electronic system such as Turnitin ® to make such decisions for us. Nonetheless, it is a valuable tool, and one which we will likely make great use of, if we do not do so already. Learning how to reference correctly in a piece of academic writing is but one of the challenges facing our learners and, as with most things in life, the start is often the most difficult part, as there is so much information to take on board, all at once. Managing/doing academic work, including learning how to write effectively (and reference the work of others appropriately) is but one of the many challenges that new students face as they learn what is, and is not, part of the research culture in which we all work. As it is one of the most fundamental of skills for the budding researcher, undergraduate or postgraduate, we have much, much more to do in helping our students to engage appropriately in developing and enhancing the professional research culture which is at the heart of higher education.


Developing a research culture in the undergraduate curriculum

A B S T R AC T A great deal of value is placed on student research within universities, exemplified by the prominent role of the dissertation or extended written work at the end of many programmes, and the more general benefits of embedding research-based learning into a curriculum in order to develop higher-order learning. This article reports on a collaborative problem-

Introduction

One of the key ways in which a research culture can be developed among students in any university department is through involving students in the research projects of academics. Collaboration between academics and undergraduates on 'live' research projects is a relatively recent phenomenon in the UK. Warwick University and Imperial College (influenced by a rich and established practice in American universities) have both experimented with undergraduate research scholarship schemes. Initiatives such as the 'Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research' funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), a collaboration between Warwick and Oxford Brookes Universities, 'puts undergraduate research at the centre of undergraduate education. By reinventing the relationship between teaching, learning and research, students will benefit from becoming contributors to the research culture of their departments' (Warwick University Media Centre, 2005). Only a brief scan of American University websites shows just how much undergraduate research is valued, encouraged and produces opportunities for knowledge transfer and external funding. Inspired by the Boyer Commission Report, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities (1998), The Reinvention Center at Stony Brook promotes models of good practice for developing an undergraduate research culture. Yet, all this reinvention and re-engineering requires an immense amount of goodwill, time and resources. How can a small team of academics encourage an undergraduate research culture with limited funding and time constraints: a research culture that is produced by students for students through collaborative 'live' research with their tutors? This article presents one student-led approach to developing a research culture in the undergraduate curriculum.

Why develop an undergraduate research culture?

Undoubtedly, '[i]nvolving students in inquiry -in research -is a way of improving their learning, motivating them more. After all, what motivates large numbers of academics is engaging in the excitement of research' (Brew, in Jenkins et al., 2003: ix). Teachers and students see the ability to conduct independent research -expressed in the form of the dissertation/thesis or extended piece of written work -as evidence of 'graduateness' in the UK as well as other countries. In part this is because such an extended research project is the classic, or at least most obvious, form of independent or autonomous learning if we judge it by staff-student contact time alone. However, the dissertation/thesis may have become the 'gold standard' of undergraduate assessment in the UK, which if particularly excellent may be rewarded internally, but it is not considered significant beyond the university. Moreover, to new undergraduate students 'academic research' is rather a dirty word. Having spent their school days 'Googling' for knowledge, time seems wasted in libraries and books. Their previous learning has often involved a passive, spoon-fed approach and the transition into becoming an assessment-driven student makes research for the sake of gaining knowledge a luxurious delight for some but pointless to most. Anecdotally, university teachers may often lament the seeming loss of a natural curiosity that they were sure existed in the past. Having said this, they also have expectations of the undergraduate learner based on abstract pedagogic principles of independence or autonomy. However, the model of the lonely ascetic researcher is not one desired by undergraduates. As [START_REF] Finlay | Tête à tête: Reading Groups and Peer Learning[END_REF] discovered while experimenting with peer reading groups for encouraging deeper critical reading skills: traditional notions of the lonely researcher/reader as a sign of graduateness are of no benefit to students undertaking dissertation research nor to developing a research culture early in the degree programme.

Clearly, tensions between aspirations for and the realities of research-based learning have been identified elsewhere. For example, research on student expectations has shown that first-year undergraduates prefer -and indeed hope for -group-centred learning, interactive lectures and individual tutorials, rather than the traditional lecture in which knowledge is 'transmitted' to them [START_REF] Stevenson | University Students' Expectations of Teaching[END_REF]. Similarly, Chan (2001: 293) has noted that 'students have far more positive attitudes to learner autonomy than we would expect [and] welcomed the opportunity to work autonomously, especially in collaborative work'. The relative cost-effectiveness of more interactive modes of teaching notwithstanding (e.g. necessity of small groups or use of e-learning), it is clear that students wish to be engaged in the curriculum as active participants and will take responsibility for their learning if it is managed correctly. Collaboration is the key and this collaboration can take place both offline and online, such that the learner is 'involved in constructing knowledge through a process of discussion and interaction with learning peers and experts' (Harasim, 1989: 51).

Such a notion of collaboration may be at odds with traditional ideas about how to research for a dissertation or thesis. [START_REF] Lewis | 53 Interesting Ways to Supervise Student Projects, Dissertations and Theses[END_REF] outline why the one-to-one nature of dissertation supervision precludes experimentation with pedagogic techniques (Lewis and Habeshaw, 1997: 11) and the privacy of the dissertation tutorial makes reviewing of teaching practice tricky so it goes unexplored and undeveloped [START_REF] Pearson | Research Training and Supervision Development[END_REF]. If students are to be encouraged to work together on research tasks early on so that collaborative practice is embedded, then collaborating with their tutor on research for the dissertation may involve rethinking the power differentials that [START_REF] Lewis | 53 Interesting Ways to Supervise Student Projects, Dissertations and Theses[END_REF] draw attention to. It might also shift the ownership of a research culture away from academics.

Therefore, our concern solidified into a realization that students did not engage in effective research practice from the outset because higher order skills of evaluation, synthesis and reflection were not expected of them in these early days.The project asked critical questions about the general applicability of level descriptors to a research-centred curriculum that sought to embed enquiry-based learning. Whilst level descriptors are important for measuring progression they also imply 'fixity' of certain skills or aptitudes within discrete levels that may not always allow the curriculum designer to explore ways of building bridges and links between levels. Thus, we need to explore ways in which research practice -that necessarily requires 'higher order' skills of formulation, appraisal or evaluation -can be delivered in a way that is appropriate and achievable for students new to university. Such a managed taste of research-based learning is important in order that students develop a holistic sense of their curriculum and so that that the increased focus on research-centred practice and self-directed study in later levels is well prepared for.Additionally, employing students to undertake academic research, to demonstrate research skills, techniques and results, further rewards their good practice.

In summary, there is a wider, more entrenched context to this debate as [START_REF] Jenkins | Reshaping Teaching in Higher Education: Linking Teaching and Research[END_REF] have highlighted in their emphasis upon the careful cultivation of a research culture for students, which can only be brought about if there is an institutional policy shift in bringing research and teaching more closely together. As Ramsden (2001: 4) has argued: 'I believe that the main hope for realizing a genuinely student-centred undergraduate education lies in re-engineering the teaching-research nexus'. Such a nexus need not be led by academics' research interests at all. In fact, the research interests of students are just as valuable and within the context of a media studies degree may even be more up-to-date and original. More importantly though, the development of an undergraduate research culture may well require supportive institutions but this does not mean that teachers have to sit and wait for the institution to become supportive. If the 'aim is to increase the circumstances in which teaching and research have occasion to meet' (Hattie and Marsh, 1996: 533) then the following provides one example for such a meeting. Thus, '[t]he question is not how individuals become members in a larger cognitive community as they do in apprenticeship studies. Rather the question is how a cognitive community could emerge in the first place' (Schwartz, 1995: 350). Allowing space in the curriculum for the emergence of a research community, even if that community is only evident for the briefest of moments, can certainly yield important results.

The research methods detailed below were intended to contribute to developing a more supportive relationship between tutors and students, by encouraging what [START_REF] Williams | Biographical notes JOANNNE GARDE-HANSEN researches media theories of body culture, media memories and media archives[END_REF] refer to as a 'we culture' (cited in Marshall, 1999: 115).The methods sought to rethink the power-differentials between teacher and learner through collaborative research practice: the idea being to 'offer one way of actively involving and engaging with the agendas of those who are being researched' and of exploring (and valuing) shared experience (Field, 2000: 334). More importantly, allowing peer mentorship through research-based workshops was modelled upon the 'transition workshop' run by [START_REF] Peat | Enhancing the First Year Student Experience by Facilitating the Development of Peer Networks Through a One Day Workshop[END_REF], for new entrants to develop learning networks and help them move into University life more comfortably. The working definition of how the students should engage with the problem hinged on the notion of collaborative learning as 'a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem' (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995: 70). Here, then, one can see the development of knowledge through social interaction.

This peer-mentorship strategy promoted a concept of students in 'learning groups where a power structure or hierarchy is deliberately suppressed' (Kremer and McGuiness, 1998: 46). The purpose, then, was that the peer or collaborative learning approach to developing a research culture should dismantle the notion that research into the discipline was authoritative and precious, such that these students could take ownership of the research material without authoritative strictures (Abercrombie, 1979: 21). The approach sought to confirm the findings of [START_REF] Lewis | 53 Interesting Ways to Supervise Student Projects, Dissertations and Theses[END_REF], [START_REF] Marshall | Supervising Projects and Dissertations[END_REF], [START_REF] Styles | The Synergistic Thesis: Student and Supervisor Perspectives[END_REF] and [START_REF] Pearson | Research Training and Supervision Development[END_REF], all of whom address the need for clarity, guidance and structure for promoting independent and autonomous undergraduate researchers.

Research methodology

The project entitled 'Developing a Research Culture in the Undergraduate Curriculum' was designed to demonstrate the value of collaborative research with and among students through the use of enquiry-based learning (EBL) and problem-based learning (PBL). Six established undergraduates designed and delivered a half-day research conference to new undergraduates in order to better understand how a research culture can be developed from the beginning, how collaborative research can aid this development and how to offer a joined-up curriculum.The three activities used in order to gather the data are now described.

An online focus group

Three Level II and three Level III undergraduates were employed on the project from October 2003 to March 2004. These students were from the Media Communications field at the University of Gloucestershire. An asynchronous online focus group was established and the project leaders, both senior lecturers in the field, acted as e-moderators which involved facilitating discussions and posting questions but largely observing the discussions unfold in a virtual learning environment. During this process the Level I student representative to the field provided the role of e-consultant, which involved responding to the students' call for more information on the needs and problems that new students face on entering university.

A problem-based learning (PBL) activity

The fundamental activity that motivated the online focus group discussions was a PBL task, which required that the students solve the problem of the lack of a research culture for new undergraduates. This meant planning, preparing and delivering a half-day 'Research Conference' for new students based on a series of interactive workshops and presentations in March 2004. Three workshops would be created, designed by the students themselves, based on their consultations with the Level I field representative. The conference would consist of a welcome meeting, break-out workshop sessions and then a plenary. The nub of the conference was to establish (and evaluate) a community of learning across all levels of the curriculum centred on the development of a 'research culture'.

The half-day research conference

Held in March 2004, the student-led conference was attended by 48 first year undergraduate delegates and ran as three 45-minute workshops in two repeated sessions, thus allowing the delegates to choose two out of three options. The video-recorded workshops were run by the students without the presence of staff. While the project leaders were on hand to help with any organizational issues, they did not attend the workshops.The use of a bespoke up-to-date conferencing facility and conferencing refreshments usually reserved for staff effectively conveyed to the students that their research was of value and that the delegates' attendance was being taken seriously.

Results: revealing the undergraduate's perception of research

In total, 75 messages (15,735 words) were posted to the online focus group as the students grappled with the problem of developing a research culture in the following ways. Firstly, they reflected upon how they had felt about research when they were in Level I. Seeing the workshops as '"bridging the gap" between A level and degree work' they reflected upon the 'passivity and little background context in A level work' that 'most students carry … into uni'. 'If they don't know where they're going', wrote one of the students, 'then they're probably still carrying a passive attitude towards research, thinking it's something they "have to do" instead of being a varied, active process' (Level II student, online message posted 03/12/03). Quite clearly, the students saw the issue of developing a research culture in the curriculum as subject-specific, arguing that:

[w]e need to build a research 'culture', a philosophy of research, not by saying 'right, theorists talk crap, here's how to break them down in three simple steps' but by instilling an exploratory curiosity when confronting any media text. If we don't stay on the surface of research as a process, then this'll probably become an 'idiot's guide to media communications.' (Level II student, online message posted 07/04/04) Thus, they pinpointed areas of weakness in curriculum delivery that highlighted how students went wrong with research from the outset. Overall, the online focus group discussion led to the development of their three different workshop approaches to research: 'opening the door to undergraduate research','broadening research' and 'finding an angle and being creative with research'.

The delivery of the first workshop was a bone-picking exercise of a typical module guide and showed that students viewed these documents as instruction manuals: 'If you identify the underlying principles then you won't spend loads of time "trawling through internet journals and books etc." gathering lots of information you are never going to use' (Level III student, Workshop 1). The claim that '[t]here's always a couple of marks you can gain by showing that you have read that [pointing to the assessment criteria]' (Level II student, Workshop 1), showed how students are strategic researchers. Largely because as one student stated: 'You're going to find that tutor contact gets less and less and less and the whole point is that they don't tell you how to do this research' (Level III student, Workshop 1).

The second workshop's focus was more on the tools used to gather materials. Making first years aware of all the resources available to them through discussing the textbooks, journals, internet sources, online journals, newspapers and magazines that they had used to research their dissertation topics was seen as a practical way to instil a research culture. More importantly, the third workshop took the unconventional approach of showing students how they could be creative with research through a problem-solving activity. In this, students were provided with a washing line and pegs. Using a stack of papers with key theories, theorists, concepts, terminology and media examples printed on them, the participants had to creatively peg together a research project.

We'd like you to think about ways in which you can connect to areas you are already familiar with and design an idea for an essay based on this. So what we'd like to do is give you a large selection of images, terminology and ideas and get you within groups to pick out from these resources the things you would be interested in talking about if you were actually designing this independently in your essay. (Level II student, Workshop 3)

The aim of this workshop was to demonstrate that when it comes to research everything can be connected to everything. In their evaluations of the workshop, all nominated this active and collaborative workshop as the most useful.

Discussion: building an undergraduate research community

The students' keenness to distance their conference workshops from the learning and personal development courses they had experienced makes clear that as curriculum developers we should seriously reflect upon the 'key skills' modules we present to them as exemplars of good research practice. As one student warned:

[i]f we aren't careful we will end up reproducing the awful SF module us third years had in the first year (I think they have improved since!) where we had to begrudgingly turn up and be lectured at about how this and that is important but still left not knowing how to go about achieving any of it. Our grandiose notions of students wishing to develop an exploratory curiosity of the subject area soon gave way to the realization that these students were so assessment-driven they sought a paint-by-numbers approach to gaining knowledge, packaged it neatly and presented it back to tutors who equally assessed this knowledge in line with criteria and descriptors. In summing up, the students stressed that time was of the essence and in the conference they explained that:

You don't have to spend hours reading each article and every page of the book. Look at the introduction, look at the conclusion, see if that applies and use it. Whilst crucial to cover theory of media texts, the other methods we have covered today, show how your arguments can become far more convincing and persuasive just by using a few more methods of research. Students with a broader range of research in their essays often get better marks, that's you know, just common sense really. (Level II student, Workshop 2) Unexpectedly, the online discussion between the students delved much deeper into the problem of instilling a research culture into the curriculum than had been anticipated. Their critical reflection upon their entire experience of researching for assignments unearthed a subtext to the project. The desire to see rigorous research could be interpreted as a defensive mechanism, stemming from a need to justify and prove more globally that studying media was a serious pursuit. As one of the students phrased the dilemma of academics in a much maligned subject area: Know this may seem either boring or irrelevant (probably both), but for me this entire SoLT project has come about due to the identity crisis suffered by Media Studies and other interdisciplinary degrees. By aiming to 'develop a research culture' in the minds of media students, in other words we're trying to instill [sic] a theoretical rigour to a course seen by so many, in a highbrow view, as mickey mouse. (Level II student, online message posted 2 February 2004)

Research-based degrees grapple with the problem that undergraduates do not research deeply and widely enough, but in the context of this degree the student conference organizers had pinpointed a philosophical dilemma at the heart of the enquiry. While some members of the student research team interpreted the solution to the problem as a need to show new students the ABC of how to research effectively, others resisted this simplistic approach. The students who led the third workshop employed a different method. Their focus upon independence, depth and creativity in researching media sought to move the Level I undergraduates away from an ABC to research. While the other two workshops extolled strategies coterminous with research for assignments created by tutors, this workshop recognized the move toward the dissertation as a sign of graduateness. Taking this heuristic approach proved fruitful as they demonstrated to students the kind of autonomy they could have in designing research projects of their own, providing a sense of ownership of the degree subject matter.

Student evaluation of the conference from delegates and presenters was very positive and all valued the opportunity to network. In particular, they respected the views of their peers and clearly highlighted in their feedback that they had benefited from sharing knowledge across the levels in this way. Using students to solve the problem and run the conference proved to be motivating and enabling (one of the workshop presenters later graduated with a first class honours, winning scholarships for MA and PhD research). Most importantly, rather than lone work, partner and group work was especially productive. The opportunity to engage with tutors in a piece of 'live' research was of particular importance to the student presenters who appreciated that their research abilities were being celebrated. That this 'live' research was an activity with a process of enquiry at its centre that solved a problem and led the teams in three different directions only enriched the conference and the experience of the delegates.This was an extra-curricular research opportunity for these students to contribute to the research culture of the department, to inform curriculum redesign and to serve as mentors to new undergraduates. Clearly, building a research-rich learning environment cannot be achieved overnight but the online discussions and the conference did provide a window into a different way of teaching and learning with students as partners in learning.

Recommendations

What was clear from the various methods and guidelines delivered in the workshops was that the students promoted support, guidance and clear structure as the key ingredients to encourage independent researchers. While the research literature bore this out in its identification of the barriers to deep and reflective undergraduate research, i.e. lack of collaboration and active learning, a need for a redefinition of power differentials and peer-mentorship or an under-resourced and unsupportive institution, it did not offer enough practical examples for implementing solutions. A student-led research conference is one simple, effective and low-cost way of developing a research culture in the undergraduate curriculum. It can promote peer mentorship, cross-level communication and a joined-up curriculum and place undergraduate research at the forefront of a degree programme. If established students run the conference and it is recorded, it also provides evidence for improving curriculum delivery and demonstrating active learning.

However, it is recognized that whilst research-based learning might be a valid aim of any curriculum striving to produce independence or autonomy, it is hard to achieve and has to be carefully managed. Students bring with them expectations and aspirations that may themselves be internally contradictory and that are challenging to meet given student numbers. A passive approach to learning abounds among new students and with no sense of how their learning has to change to graduate they are in the dark as to where they are going. Having said this, encouraging undergraduates who are engaged in dissertation research to present their strategies, ideas and thoughts through a research conference to new entrants provides opportunities for peer mentorship, collaborative learning and a sense of a joined-up curriculum. It becomes a nexus where many students from a variety of degree combinations meet and connect on the overriding issue of research.

Instilling an exploratory curiosity in cash-strapped, assessment-driven, tuition fee-paying, homesick students is idealistic but it draws attention to the fundamental flaw in how departments deliver research skills. Rather than focus on the ABC of how to research, the very value of undergraduate research needs to be embedded in the curriculum from day one. Furthermore, as our future research project suggests, promoting undergraduate research through tying assessments to local community involvement may well be particularly enriching. Consequently, we recommend that the following approaches be explored if they are not already undertaken at your institution:

• course and faculty awards for dissertation research; • letters of congratulations from tutors and external examiners for research assignments of exceptional quality; The student perceptions of research revealed that it needs to be promoted as the 'flagship' activity of each discipline, not simply as a set of transferable skills. Students need to be made visible as research-active individuals and teams. They need to see that their research efforts are valued. As each university in the UK and around the world watches the pendulum swing between research and teaching as the core businesses of their institution, wondering if no-man's land is where it will end up, tutors and students are engaged every day in research in one form or another and much of this work is not celebrated beyond that which is necessary for assessment.

  (Level III student, online message posted 4 December 2003) Such courses are not crowd-pleasers and they often seek to invoke active learning through passive delivery. As the Level I representative made clear in his role as e-consultant to the team: All 1st year students are on a mandatory Learning and Personal Development module. This is basically an idiot's guide to working at uni. It provides information on the Learning Resources, how to produce Bibliographies, essay writing skills etc. It's what I'd call a key skills module. It is however, seen as pretty tedious and time consuming by some students. Despite this module, many students are worried about what the future holds for them at university. (Level I representative, online message posted 11 December 2003)

  • using examples of undergraduate research projects on university websites; • extra credits in a course for extra research undertaken; • embedding of a virtual learning environment within courses to encourage research discussions and to integrate the rich internet resources available; • promotion of peer mentoring either face to face, online inside virtual learning environments or through credits; • involving students in academics' discipline research and/or pedagogic research projects; • establishing research opportunities in the local community: through interviewing, vox-pops or running after-university workshops alongside tutors; • group dissertation tutorials online or face-to-face; and • establishing research 'blogs' or personal digital research archives.