K. Mukhopadhyay*, S. K. Tambyah, K. J. FONG, J. S. YIP
College of Alice and Peter Tan (CAPT), NUS
Mukhopadhyay, K., Tambyah, S. K., Fong, K. J., Yip, J. S. J. (2024). Pedagogical practices for study trips: A factor analysis of key variables [Paper presentation]. In Higher Education Conference in Singapore (HECS) 2024, 3 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecs/hecs2024-kmukhopadhyay-et-al-2/
SUB-THEME
Opportunities from Engaging Communities
KEYWORDS
Factor analysis, vignette survey, intentional pedagogy, experiential learning, study trips
CATEGORY
Paper Presentation
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
This paper will share insightful findings on the effective pedagogies for engaging with communities during short-term overseas experiential study trips. The findings are based on a robust factor analysis of variables that define pre-trip and actual-trip pedagogies. The data was obtained from a vignette survey conducted as part of a larger research study funded by Ministry of Education (MOE). This larger study is a comprehensive assessment of the pedagogies used and the learning outcomes achieved in a residential college through such trips. For more than a decade, the trips, guided by experiential learning theories (Kolb 1984; Moon, 2004; Roberts, 2012; Lovett, 2020) have been conducted in different geographical locations (India, Myanmar, Balkans, Botswana, and Nepal), and by different faculty-student teams.
The intentional pedagogical practices—pre-trip and during the actual trip—provide the foundation to achieve the deep learning outcomes for students who embark on these trips (VandeBerg, et al, 2012; Matsushita, 2018; Mukhopadhyay, et al., 2022). The question that this paper addresses is: What aspects of intentional pedagogies are a) most productive, and b) challenging for achieving deep learning outcomes in short-term overseas experiential study trips?
VIGNETTE SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The study uses a mixed-methods case study design, combining existing data from past study trips and fresh data from surveys and interviews with former student participants and overseas partners (organisation/institution/social business) from 2012 to 2020. The vignette survey was one of the primary data collection methods. The vignettes were constructed through systematic analysis of the existing data and approximated situations from the lived experiences of the students during the study trips. The vignettes aided students’ recall of what they experienced during the trips, given that there was a lag between the actual trips and this study (Hyman & Steiner, 1996; Hopkins &
King, 2010).
Factor analysis results
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the variables related to pre-trip and actual trip pedagogies, based on a sample size of 145 respondents. The results revealed interesting latent constructs and evidence of the robustness of the experiential learning pedagogies (Table 1). Using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation, three latent factors from nine pre-trip pedagogical variables were identified, corresponding to classroom sessions, guest speakers, and peer presentations. These factors mapped on perfectly to the respective vignettes, demonstrating the strong construct validity of the survey. Cronbach’s Alpha tests confirmed the high reliability of the pre-trip latent factors. For actual trip engagements, the factor analysis revealed two latent factors: reflective activities and experiences from engagement. However, the reliability scores of these factors were moderate, suggesting that some components, such as reflection and the balance of activities during the actual trip, might be better treated as individual factors rather than a combined factor.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FINDINGS
These experiential study trips offer students an interactive platform to connect the concepts of engaging with communities to grounded practices through classroom discussions and field visits. This connection requires evidence-based pedagogical guidance which this paper provides through a robust factor analysis of pre-trip and actual-trip pedagogies. These results can enable a more informed understanding on how to improve the pedagogical design, implementation and learning outcomes for short-term overseas experiential study trips.
Table 1
Factor analysis results and descriptives of pre-trip and actual trip pedagogy-related variables
REFERENCES
Hopkins, D. J. & King, G. (2010). Improving anchoring vignettes: Designing surveys to correct interpersonal incomparability. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UU5EUI
Hyman, M. R. & Steiner, S. D. (1996). The vignette method in business ethics research: Current uses and recommendations. SMA Conference Paper.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall Books.
Lovett, K. (2020). Introduction: Listening and Learning from Experiential Learning Educators. In K. Lovett (Ed.) Diverse Pedagogical Approaches to Experiential Learning:Multidisciplinary Case Studies, Reflections, and Strategies (pp. 1-11). Springer Nature. https://doiorg.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.1007/978-3-030-42691-0
Moon, J. A. (2004). A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
Matsushita, K. (2018). An invitation to deep learning. In Matsushita, K. (Ed.) Deep Active Learning. Ch 2. Springer Nature. http://dx.DOI.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5660-4_2.
Mukhopadhyay, K., Balachandran, L., Wong S. F., Lai, J. C. Y., Tan, A. X. Y., McGahan, K., Toh T. C., Wong, R., & Tan L. Y. (2022). Steering towards the Internationalisation of Higher Education: Lessons from Pedagogical Interventions in Overseas Experiential Learning Programmes. Asian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(1). 20-38. https://ctlt.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/v12n1_mukhopadhyay-et-al-for-layout-2.pdf
Roberts, J. W. (2012). Beyond learning by doing: Theoretical currents in experiential education. Routledge.
Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (2012). Student learning abroad. In Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (Eds.), Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 3-28). Stylus.