POSTGRADUATE
STUDENTS
LEARNING
RESEARCH
Social Work
& Social Sciences
Review 16(2)
pp.37-50.ABOUT
DOI: 10.1921/2803160204
Postgraduate students learning about
research: Exploring the attitudes of social
work and mental health students in an
English university setting
Linda Bell1 and Carmel Clancy2
Abstract: Initial findings from a pedagogic initiative and research project show how two cohorts
comprising 105 postgraduates undertaking social work or mental health educational programmes
responded to learning about research methods in one UK university. Few studies have looked specifically
at postgraduate students’ attitudes towards research / research methods. Previous research suggests
students may express anxiety when learning about research, particularly quantitative methods. Using
an existing validated rating scale with 5 subscales (Papanastasiou, 2005), we explored students’
attitudes before and after taking a research module and possible significance of gender, professional
group and being college or employment based. Project data was used by students to complete a
quantitative module assignment. Results showed these students had a ‘positive’ attitude towards
research pre-module; this was generally maintained but did not increase post-module. Students were
rated as having overall research ‘anxiety’ pre-module; this lessened post-module although the change
was not statistically significant. A significant change (decrease) in ‘usefulness to career’ subscale was
recorded post-module. We consider factors that could have impacted on these research findings such
as reduced follow up sample sizes, but report how combining a pedagogic initiative with a research
project offers opportunities to explore this complex area, with positive outcomes for student learning.
Keywords: postgraduates; measuring attitudes to research; research methods teaching; quantitative
methods; social work students; mental health students
1. Principal Lecturer in Research Methods, Dept of Mental Health, Social Work & Interprofessional
Learning , Middlesex University
2. Head of Dept of Mental Health , Social Work & Interprofessional Learning, Middlesex University
Address for correspondence: Dept of Mental Health , Social Work & Interprofessional Learning,
School of Health and Education, Middlesex University, Hendon Campus, The Burroughs , London
NW4 4BT.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to all the students who completed ATR questionnaires as part of the
project, and to our CETL Pedagogic Research group for a small grant enabling production of our
research report. We acknowledge with thanks the support of the Attitudes to Research scale author
E. Papanastasiou (Papanastasiou, 2005)
37
LINDA BELL AND CARMEL CLANCY
Introduction
Few studies have looked specifically at postgraduate students’ attitudes towards
research and learning about research methods (see, for example, Green et al, 2001;
Mahmud & Zainol, 2008). Complex issues relate to any examination of students’
attitudes towards research, especially for those undertaking professional programmes
(such as social work or mental health), prompting questions such as:
•
•
What is the significance of the kinds of research methods students are being
taught; how do these influence students’ attitudes towards research?
How is ‘evidence based practice’ being promoted to students and what is the
connection between this concept and research methods training?
In this paper we discuss a pedagogic initiative and research project we devised to
explore (since 2007), how postgraduates undertaking social work or mental health
educational programmes in one UK university responded to learning about research
and research methods.
We have made use of an existing validated rating scale, for which we acknowledge
with thanks the support of its author E. Papanastasiou (Papanastasiou, 2005). This
scale with its 5 subscales was relevant to our work although originally developed for
use with undergraduate students.
Literature review: Students’ attitudes towards research and
learning about research
It is consistently reported that students express anxiety when learning about
research, particularly quantitative methods (Ballou, 2002; Bessant, 1992; DeCesare,
2007; Mahmud & Zainol, 2008; Mills, 2004; Morgenshtern et al, 2011; Waters et
al, 1988; Zeidner, 1991). There are suggestions that students report the subject to
be ‘inherently uninteresting and difficult’ (Bridges et al, 1998, p.14). Increasing
concerns are being expressed in the UK and internationally that skills in quantitative
methods including statistical analysis are becoming rarer (see, for example, House of
Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2004). Students (especially
those in social sciences) may view research-related courses negatively, particularly
relating to quantitative research, statistics and mathematics (for example, Murtonen,
2005, 2008; Paxton, 2006; Williams et al 2008) and this may extend to use of mixed
methodologies (for example Earley 2007; Hoyles et al, 2005; Tashakkori & Teddlie,
2003). Some studies have considered gender issues in relation to achievements in
maths/statistics (Holley et al, 2007; Schram, 1996) whilst others have suggested that
‘research reluctance’ has been exaggerated in some student groups including student
38
POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS LEARNING ABOUT RESEARCH
social workers (Secret, Ford & Rompf, 2003). Morgenshtern et al, 2011 however
report that 62% of the social work masters students in their study reported a high
degree of anxiety about their abilities in research.
Students’ negative attitudes have been found to serve as obstacles to learning,
associated with poor performance in such courses (for example Rosenthal & Wilson,
1992). Causal models would suggest that attitudes are mediators between past
performance and future achievement. However, relatively few studies have looked at
student acquisition of research methods knowledge and skills, especially in relation
to quantitative methods.
Bridge et al (1998) demonstrated through a quasi-experimental study of US
undergraduate sociology students that ‘students’ abilities to interpret and manipulate
empirical [quantitative] data increased significantly’ (p.14) following a course on
quantitative research methods and that this occurred independently of ‘students’
basic reasoning skills as measured by baseline SAT verbal and math scores’ (p.14).
Secret, Ford & Rompf (2003) however report from their study of US undergraduate
social workers that there was no relationship between students’ statistical knowledge
and how appealing they found research to be.
Williams et al (2008) surveyed 738 UK undergraduate sociology students in
2006 and showed specific kinds of quantitative methods were perceived to be
more difficult, particularly when these required greater underpinning statistical
knowledge: furthermore ‘the more ‘difficult’ [statistical] techniques are studied by
fewer students ‘ (Williams et al, p.1014). Williams et al suggest that typically students
may be more interested in using qualitative techniques for their own research work
and this may be reinforced by what [undergraduate] students are taught in research
methods courses. It is acknowledged that there may be additional issues to consider
for postgraduate students.
Murtonen (2005) suggests from research that some students had a dichotic
attitude towards quantitative and qualitative methodologies, seeming to ‘choose
their side’ between these approaches. This study suggested a reduction in difficulties
experienced with learning about quantitative methods was connected with a lowered
over-appreciation of qualitative methods at the end of the course. Goguen, Knight &
Tiberius (2008) also report that medical trainees and physicians showed preference
for ‘quantitative’ research and considered this form of enquiry to be ‘more scientific’;
this was associated with lack of knowledge and experience of qualitative research.
Within qualifying level and post-qualifying professional programmes such as social
work these methodological issues become even more significant, as professional
practitioners are being urged to locate their practice within ‘evidence-based’
approaches. There is a continuing debate about the meaning of ‘evidence based’
practice and the extent to which this (necessarily) relies on ‘positivist’ research
approaches using quantitative methods (Green, 2006; Morgenshtern et al, 2011;
Webb, 2001). Webb (2001) for example suggests confidently that ‘social work should
abandon mechanistic approaches, such as evidential practice and those characteristic
39
LINDA BELL AND CARMEL CLANCY
of experimental and behavioural research’ (Webb, p.76). Green (2006) suggests that
social work has sometimes been viewed as ‘anti-intellectual’ and with a poor academic
status and that this is partly due to a reluctance to embrace positivist approaches to
research and research evidence.
Another study (Caldwell, Coleman, Copp, Bell, & Ghazi, 2007) researched the
impact of student learning about specific critical appraisal skills for ‘evidence based
practice’ during research methods training and the implications for future practice
and research minded-ness. This survey of recently qualified professionals (including
social workers and nurses) who had taken programmes in London universities
showed respondents were positive about ‘evidence based practice’ and most had
developed skills in critical appraisal of research literature during their professional
education. However, once in employment few had the opportunity or time to read
and evaluate research evidence on which to base their current practice. This paper
however leaves open the question of what kind(s) of research evidence practitioners
would be reading or basing their practice upon. Harrison, Lowery & Bailey (1991)
in a pre – post test study of nursing undergraduates reported that students’ attitudes
towards research were more positive following a research methods course, yet their
knowledge levels remained unchanged.
Other studies involving social work students have often focused on issues such as
anxiety about maths or statistics, sometimes in relation to gender issues (e.g. Glisson
& Fischer, 1987; Green et al, 2001; Lawson & Berleman, 1982; Lorenz, 2003;
Montcalm, 1999; Morgenshtern et al, 2011; Nelson, 1983; Royse & Rompf, 1992;
Secret, Ford & Rompf, 2003; Taylor, 1990; Unrau and Grinnell, 2005). International
studies have also considered the significance of views expressed by social work
programme staff (Lazar, 1991; Poulin, 1989; Ramachandran & De Sousa,1985).
In Lazar’s Israeli study, students’ attitudes towards research were shown to be more
positive compared to staff views about their own students’ attitudes.
Morgenshtern et al, 2011, in a recent study of Canadian social work masters
students, report that during a 9 week mandatory data analysis course, students
were more positive about the value of research, but less so about learning about or
conducting research. This study used a similar methodology to our own project (self
report ATR scale (Papanastasiou, 2005) with responses from 102 students, augmented
by written qualitative responses from 77 of these respondents. Morgenshtern et al,
(2011) report that their findings do not suggest any ‘systemic’ difficulty in relating
research to the social work profession itself, but that students’ apprehension about
research seemed to be in relation to their own perceived abilities /lack of abilities.
From this brief background discussion we can see that few studies have looked
specifically at postgraduate students’ attitudes and that complex issues relate to any
examination of students’ attitudes towards research and research methods, especially
those undertaking professional programmes.
40
POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS LEARNING ABOUT RESEARCH
Project methodology
Beginning in the 2007/8 academic year we have gathered and analysed data about
postgraduate student attitudes towards ‘research’ & learning about research. We
focused initially on a purposive and convenience sample of first year MA social work
students, who were taking a new, revised Research Methods module for the first
time in 2007/8. This year-long (two semester) module covers all aspects of research
methods, both qualitative and quantitative. They were subsequently joined in class by
a smaller group of MSc Dual Diagnosis (Mental health) students in 2008/9 and also
by MSc Mental Health students in 2011. As part of formal module assessment, it was
decided students would carry out a short assignment based on quantitative research
methods in addition to preparing a critical appraisal paper and a research proposal.
We identified an existing validated rating scale (the Attitudes Toward Research
scale - ATR), (Papanastasiou, 2005). This scale was relevant to our work since it
asked about attitudes towards research, although it was originally developed for use
with undergraduate students. The ATR consists of a 32-item (positively or negatively
worded) measure using a 7-point Likert scale, originally developed at the University
of Cyprus (Papanastasiou, 2005). For data analyses, negatively worded items are
reversed so that a higher numbered response on the Likert scale represents positive
attitudes. Whilst providing an overall attitude score, the instrument provides scores on
five sub-scales (research usefulness for profession; research anxiety; positive attitude
towards research; relevance to life; and research difficulty). Papanastasiou (2005)
reports high reliability for the ATR (r=0.948) and the coefficient alpha reliabilities
for the responses to items on each of the five subscales were also relatively high.
We have not attempted to test the scale further except by exploring its use in our
research practice. Students have reacted favourably whilst also commenting on the
(sometimes ambiguous) use of the term ‘research’ on the scale itself. This however
also allows them to reflect on what ‘research’ means.
Since we aimed to combine a research project with pedagogic aims in assessing
student achievement in handling quantitative data, our methods involved asking
all students in each cohort to complete the ATR in class at the start of the module,
subsequently using the statistical data gathered from that cohort in their assessment
exercise, using SPSS. This also helped to give students a sense of ownership over
the data. We extended the project into a before / after, pre-post test design by asking
the same students to voluntarily complete another ATR at the end of their research
methods module; for this voluntary aspect of the project we obtained ethics approval
from the health ethics committee in our University school. Students were asked
to write a ‘self-identifier’ code on their questionnaire(s), comprising the first three
letters of their mother’s name with their year of birth. This enabled ‘before’ and ‘after’
questionnaires to be matched without revealing the name of the student to their tutors.
This approach allowed us to identify the following research questions:
41
LINDA BELL AND CARMEL CLANCY
•
•
•
•
•
What were these postgraduate students’ attitudes towards ‘research’, as measured
by the ATR, prior to taking the research methods module?
Did students’ attitudes vary according to other key variables? (gender, age, type
of study – college based or employment based, their professional programme
(social work or mental health)
What were postgraduate student volunteers’ attitudes towards ‘research’ after
taking the research methods module? Had these attitudes changed from those
expressed initially?
Did students’ attitudes vary according to other key variables? (gender, age, type
of study – college based or employment based, their professional programme
(social work or mental health)
What were student volunteers’ experiences of learning about research and
research methods, and how may these have influenced ideas about future career
or academic study?
In 2007 our department was part of a Centre of Excellence in Mental Health &
Social Work (CETL) and we obtained support from the CETL Pedagogic Research
group, including a small grant enabling us to produce a report. We originally planned
to hold focus groups post-module (addressing the final research question, above)
but have as yet not achieved this aim.
Project results
The project is ongoing and so far we have gathered data from 5 cohorts of over 250
students in total (2007 – 2011). This has produced a considerable amount of statistical
data and related material, for example relating to student assessment. We produced
a project report in 2010 based on findings from the first two student cohorts, and
the results presented here focus on these cohorts.
Overall response rate and profile of students
A total of 105 from a possible 113 students in cohorts 1 & 2 (93%) participated in
the study (43 social work students in cohort 1, and 61 (including 10 Dual Diagnosis
students) in cohort 2). Eight missing students were absent from college on the data
collection day rather than refusing to participate. Most participants were MA Social
Work students (90%), female (73%), holding a first degree (74%), and with 60%
reporting some direct field research experience (for example undergraduate or
postgraduate dissertation). Although all were pre-qualification social work students
carrying out work placements for 3 days per week during terms, 45% of these
42
POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS LEARNING ABOUT RESEARCH
students were otherwise college based, whilst 45% were seconded to the programme
by employers. The remaining 10% of the sample were MSc ‘Dual diagnosis’ students,
qualified health or social care professionals making up a small sub-set of the 2008/9
cohort, who were either self funding or being sponsored by their employer.
Given that the profile of the two cohorts was different, Dual Diagnosis programme
students being included with social workers in cohort 2, we have analysed attitudes
both pre and post module in this paper by cohort rather than as one large group.
Cohort 1 (07/08 Intake). Social work students only
Baseline
The mean score for overall attitude to research prior to undertaking the module for the
07/08 cohort was 4.37 (SD 0.662). Profiles for each sub scale were also explored and
mean scores determined. The higher the score (maximum 7), the more positive the
attitude held by the student group, with a mean score of 4 being considered ‘neutral’.
As a group, these social work students thus held an overall ‘positive’ attitude towards
research, and more specifically considered research to be useful in their professional
(research usefulness mean score = 5.36), and personal lives (relevance to life mean
score = 4.46). The mean score for research anxiety was however less positive at 3.46.
No significant difference was found at baseline on attitude scores between male and
female students’ (t = -.693, df 40, p = 0.49), however, students who had previously
undertaken research (t=-2.58, df 40, p = 0.01), and had also previous experience of
studying at post graduate level (t=2.68, df 40, p = 0.01) reported significantly more
positive total research attitudes.
Follow up
Nineteen cohort 1 students (44%) completed the ATR scale after finishing the
module. The mean score for overall attitude to research at follow up was 4.10 (SD
0.861). Profiles for each sub scale were also explored at follow up and mean scores
compared with pre module scores. Although the overall research attitude score can
be seen to reduce in positivity from 4.37, no statistically significant difference was
found between students’ pre test and post test scores (t=1.31, df 16, p = 0.21). When
pre and post test scores across the five subscales were explored, three (research
usefulness; positive attitude; and relevance to life) reduced in positivity, although
these change scores were not statistically significant. Conversely, students’ attitudes
moved marginally (but again not statistically significantly) in a positive direction in
the research anxiety and research difficulty subscales.
43
LINDA BELL AND CARMEL CLANCY
Cohort 2 (08/09 Intake). Social work plus dual diagnosis (mental
health) students
Baseline
The mean score for overall attitudes to research prior to taking the module (at
baseline) for the 08/09 cohort was 4.3 (SD 0.737). Profiles for each sub scale were
also explored and mean scores determined. Similarly to the 07/08 cohort, students
indicated that they had an overall positive attitude towards research, and considered
research to be useful in their professional (research usefulness), and personal lives
(relevance to life). Contrary to findings from the first cohort, male students in the
08/09 intake had a significantly more positive attitude towards research than the
female students (t = 2.73, df 60, p =0.00). However, the first and second cohort
showed no significant difference at baseline on total attitude score between students
who had previously undertaken research (t= -.815, df 58, p = 0.42), or who had
previous experience of studying at post graduate level (t=.218, df 56, p = 0.78) (See
Table 1, Cohorts 1 and 2 compared at baseline).
Follow up
Table 1
Mean Scores for Total Attitude and Subscales for both Cohorts at baseline and follow-up
Mean scores
2007- 2008 student cohort
N = 43
N = 19
PrePost-
Overall Research Attitude
4.37
4.10
(SD 0.662) (SD 0.861)
2008- 2009 student cohort
N = 61
N = 34
Pre Post 4.30
3.95
(SD 0.737) (SD 1.05)
Subscales:
Difficulty of research
3.98
4.03
4.08
3.90
Relevance to life
4.46
4.05
4.34
4.20
Positive attitude to research
4.27
3.91
4.09
3.58
Research anxiety
3.46
3.51
3.32
3.45
Research usefulness
5.36
4.85
5.41
4.72
Thirty four students (55%) from cohort 2 completed the ATR scale after the
module. The mean score for overall attitude to research at follow up was 3.95
(SD 1.05). Profiles for each post- subscale were also explored and mean scores
compared with pre module scores. Although overall attitude reduced in positivity,
no statistically significant difference was found between students’ pre test and
post test scores (t=1.98, df 31, p = 0.06). When pre and post test change scores
across the five domains were explored, differences between mean scores for four
44
POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS LEARNING ABOUT RESEARCH
of the domains were not significant. However, the change score for the domain
measuring ‘research usefulness’ (that is, to career) indicated that students’ attitudes
(albeit still positive) were less positive following the module (mean score premodule = 5.41; post-module = 4.72) (t= 3.053, df= 33, p= 0.00). But similarly to
the first cohort, students’ attitudes moved marginally (although not statistically
significantly) in a positive direction in terms of research anxiety (mean score premodule = 3.32; post-module = 3.45)
Discussion
We have explored a number of questions associated with postgraduate student
attitudes towards learning about research. By introducing a new, quantitative
component to the module assessment we also aimed to test our students’ ability
to learn about statistical data analysis and to report the use of T tests and other
statistical research methods. This study also enabled us to research and assess whether
volunteers from within these student cohorts had changed their attitudes towards
research since baseline testing.
There were very few changes in attitudes to research (ATR) scores in the overall
samples of students in cohorts 1 and 2 post- module. This may have resulted partly
from small sample size(s) at follow up. We are working on combining more recent
data from different cohorts in order to obtain a broader picture. The larger number
of male students in cohort 2 ( 2008/9) including some Dual Diagnosis students
allowed us to hypothesize that total research attitude score may be different for male
& female students: an independent samples T test done with that cohort showed
the hypothesis that gender will influence overall research attitude is supported (T
value =2.922. (60 degrees of freedom). 95% CI is 5.38: 28.78. There is a significant
difference between the two groups. [P≤0.005]).
As noted above, the only statistically significant finding regarding changed scores
between pre and post measures related to ‘research usefulness’ (that is, to career).
Although not a statistically significant finding, it is also worth noting that students’
attitudes related to the domains ‘research difficulty’ and ‘research anxiety’ increased
marginally in a positive direction for both cohorts with respect to the former, and
for cohort 2 in the latter domain.
There is some pedagogic evidence from this study that social work students in
Cohort 2 appear to have gained better grades in the quantitative exercise assessment
compared to the grades for Cohort 1. Although it is difficult to infer too much from this
finding, it will be interesting to compare this with assessment results for subsequent
cohorts. Without any ‘focus group’ data enabling us to explore these issues in more
depth, interpretation must be guarded. We know that many students already had
a positive attitude towards research when tested at baseline. This mirrors work by
45
LINDA BELL AND CARMEL CLANCY
Secret, Ford & Rompf (2003) and by Morgenshtern et al, (2011), suggesting that
students’ attitudes towards learning about research are complex but not necessarily
negative. Royse & Rompf (1992) also reported greater ‘math anxiety’ amongst a
sample of US undergraduate social work students compared to those from other
disciplines. Morgenshtern et al, (2011) followed their use of the ATR scale with a
qualitative element by asking students to contribute written answers to at least one
of five open-ended questions devised by students and staff. This yielded useful data
from 77 students (64% of survey sample) that helped to explain students’ attitudes
in more detail.
Our project has suggested gender (in Cohort 2), level of education and previous
research experience (in Cohort 1) can influence students’ attitudes to research.
These trends have been noted in other research (e.g. Secret, Ford & Rompf (2003).
However we are aware that the profile of students in each cohort was different, with
the introduction of post-qualification MSc Dual Diagnosis students into Cohort 2
coming from various professions including nursing; there was also a higher proportion
of male students studying dual diagnosis. This raises issues about the significance of
gender to students’ confidence in their research abilities in relation to other factors,
which were already mentioned in research literature (although some previous research
has only focused on students’ attitudes towards qualitative methods e.g. Holley et
al, 2006).
Although both cohorts’ overall attitudes towards research seemed a little less
positive after taking the research module, mean scores at follow up were encouraging
because they remained above the median score or neutral point on the ATR. The only
statistically significant finding regarding change scores was associated with ‘research
usefulness’ (that is, to career) where students’ attitudes (albeit still positive) were
less positive following the module. Research such as that by Harrison, Lowery &
Bailey (1991) however suggests students can become more positive about research
following a methods course. There could be several explanations for this finding.
Did our reduced follow up sample mainly consist of students with a more negative
attitude towards research? Did reduced follow up response rates (44% and 55%
respectively) minimize any pre-post effects? Perhaps some students had been ‘over
confident’ and when exposed to the quantitative aspects of the module, was this
confidence reduced? Did the teaching style of the different parts of the module not
suit some students?
Although not statistically significant, it is worth noting the trend that cohort
1 student ‘research difficulty’ and ‘research anxiety’ scores increased marginally
in a positive direction, and as did ‘research anxiety’ for cohort 2 students’. These
findings are encouraging, and offer partial support for focusing on the development
of quantitative methods skills in an effort to address areas recognized to cause some
difficulty (Bridge et al, 1998; Williams et al, 2008) or to act as ‘barriers’ to learning’
(e.g. Royse & Rompf, 1992; Secret, Ford & Rompf, 2003).
From a pedagogic perspective, our results appear to show that by the end of
46
POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS LEARNING ABOUT RESEARCH
cohort 2 in terms of absolute numbers more students were obtaining their highest
assessment grade in quantitative assignments compared to students’ achievements
in cohort 1; also that in cohort 2 there were more students obtaining a ‘merit’ grade
for the quantitative exercises than in cohort 1. What are we to make of these results
(which require further analysis)? They may seem inconsistent with other results
that suggest a reduction in positive attitudes towards research; but we should also
remember that Secret, Ford & Rompf (2003) reported no necessary correlation
between undergraduate social work students’ statistical knowledge and the appeal
research had for those students (p.415).
Another factor which may be relevant here is expectations and attitudes of module
tutors in our own study. As reported by Lazar (1991), staff attitudes may be an
important factor to consider when examining student attitudes, and competence
in research; these may differ considerably from students’ attitudes. It may be that
by the time staff involved in our study taught the second student cohort (in 08/09)
their experience of delivering the quantitative element of the module had raised
expectations and as a result the level of student achievement increased. Alternatively
this particular cohort of students may already have had competence in quantitative
skills which is what is reflected in assessment results.
Conclusions
In this paper we have discussed a pedagogic initiative and research project devised
to explore how several cohorts of postgraduate students undertaking social work
or mental health educational programmes in one UK university have responded to
learning about research and research methods, using a pre-validated scale (the ATR
- Papanastasiou, 2005). This project is based on relatively small samples of students
and whilst we have attempted to introduce a longitudinal element by including several
cohorts undertaking the same module since 2007, we cannot claim at this stage to
generalize our results much beyond our own postgraduate students. The changing
nature of the student group focused on in this project, coupled with potentially
changing staff expectations may, we realize, have impacted considerably on our
results. In order to obtain ethics approval the completion of follow up questionnaires
post- module was voluntary, so our follow up samples were not as large as we had
hoped. We have also been unable to hold focus groups to date but hope that this
can be arranged as the project continues; this will introduce a qualitative element to
our inquiry. Nevertheless we consider that by using a pre-validated scale, we have
begun to provide some useful data and to raise key questions about the significance
of the kinds of research methods students are being taught. More broadly our study
may begin to shed some light on links between the promotion of ‘evidence based
practice’ to students on professional programmes and research methods teaching.
47
LINDA BELL AND CARMEL CLANCY
Combining a pedagogic exercise with an exploration of students’ attitudes towards
research has offered opportunities to explore this complex area in more depth and
with positive outcomes for student learning about research.
References
Ballou, M. (2002) Individual differences in statistics anxiety among college students.
Personality and Individual Differences 35, 5, 855-865
Bessant, K.C. (1992) Instructional design and the development of statistical literacy. Teaching
Sociology, 20, 143-149
Bridges, G., Gillmore, G., Pershing, J., and Bates, K. (1998) Teaching quantitative research
methods: A quasi-experimental analysis. Teaching Sociology, 26, 14-28
Caldwell, K., Coleman, K., Copp, G., Bell, L., and Ghazi, F. (2007) Preparing for professional
practice: How well does professional training equip health and social care practitioners to
engage in evidence-based practice? Nurse Education Today, 27, 518-528
DeCesare, M. (2007) ‘Statistics anxiety’ among sociology majors Teaching Sociology, 35, 4,
360-367
Earley, M. (2007) Developing a syllabus for a Mixed-Methods research course International
Journal of Social Research Methodology(IJSRM), 10, 2, 145-162
Glisson, C and Fischer, J. (1987) Statistical training for social workers Journal of social work
education, 23, 50-58
Goguen, J, Knight, M and Tiberius, R. (2008) Is it a science? A study of the attitudes of medical
trainees and physicians toward qualitative and quantitative research. Advances in Health
Sciences Education, 13, 659-674
Green, L. (2006) Pariah profession, debased discipline? An analysis of social work’s low
academic status and the possibilities for change Social Work Education 25, 3, 245-264
Green, R., Bretzin, A., Leininger, C., and Stauffer. (2001) Research learning attributes of
graduate students in social work, psychology and business. Journal of Social Work Education,
37, 333-341
Harrison, L., Lowery, B., and Bailey, P. (1991) Changes in nursing students’ knowledge
about the attitudes toward research following an undergraduate research course. Journal
of advanced nursing 16, 7, 807-812
Holley, L., Risley-Curtiss, C., Stott, T., Jackson, D., and Nelson, R. (2007) ‘It’s not scary’:
Empowering women students to become researchers Affilia, 22, 1,: 99-115
House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2004) First Report: Work
of the Social and Economic Research Council. Section 7 Skills shortages
Hoyles, C., Kuchemann, D., Healy, L., and Yang, M. (2005) Students’ developing knowledge
in a subject discipline: Insights from combining qualitative and quantitative methods.
IJSRM, 8, 3, 225-238
Lawson, T.R. and Berleman, W. (1982) Research in the undergraduate curriculum: A survey
48
POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS LEARNING ABOUT RESEARCH
Journal of education for social work, 15, 4, 86-93
Lazar, A. (1991) Faculty, practitioner and student attitudes toward research Journal of Social
Work Education, 27, 35-40
Lorenz, W. (2003) European experiences in teaching social work research Social Work Education
22, 1, 7-18
Mahmud, Z & Zainol, M (2008) Postgraduate perceived attitudes towards statistics and
competency in statistical data analysis. International Journal of Education and Information
Technologies, 1, 2, 79-86
Mills, J. (2004) Students’ attitudes towards statistics: implications for the future. College
Student Journal, 38, 349-361
Montcalm, D.M. (1999) Applying Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy to the teaching of research
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 9, 1/2, 93-107
Morgenshtern, M., Freymond, N., Agyapong, S., and Greeson, C. (2011) Graduate social
work students’ attitudes toward research: problems and prospects. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 31, 5, 552-568.
Murtonen, M. (2005) University students’ research orientations: Do negative research
attitudes exist toward quantitative methods? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
49, 3, 263-280
Murtonen, M ., Olkinuora, E., Tynjälä, P., and Lehtinen, E. (2008) ‘Do I need
research skills in working life?’: University students’ motivation and difficulties in
quantitative methods courses. Higher Education, Published online: 13 February 2008
ttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-008-9113-9#page-1
Nelson, K. (1983) Differences in graduate and undergraduate performance in a core research
course. Journal of Education for Social Work 19, 3, 77-84
Papanastasiou, E.C. (2005) Factor structure of the ‘Attitudes Toward Research’ scale6 Statistics
Education Research Journal, 4, 1, 16-26, http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/serj
Paxton, P. (2006) Dollars and sense: Convincing students that they can learn and want to
learn statistics .Teaching Sociology 34, 1, 65-70
Poulin, J. (1989) Goals for undergraduate social work research: A survey of BSW program
directors Journal of Social Work Education, 25, 284-289
Ramachandran, P. and De Sousa, D. (1985) Teaching of social work research: Some reflections.
Indian Journal of Social Work Education, 46, 389-398
Rosenthal, B. and Wilson, W. (1992) Student factors affecting performance in an MSW research
and statistics course. Journal of Social Work Education, 28, 1, 77-84
Royse, D. and Rompf, E.L. (1992) Math anxiety: a comparison of social work and non-social
work students Journal of Social Work Education, 28, 270-277
Schram, C.M. (1996) A meta-analysis of gender differences in applied statistics achievement.
Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 21, 55-70
Secret, M, Ford, J and Rompf, E.L. (2003) Undergraduate research courses: a closer look reveals
complex social work student attitudes Journal of Social Work Education, 39, 3, 411-422
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003) Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods
courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International Journal of Social
49
LINDA BELL AND CARMEL CLANCY
Research Methodology 6, 1 , 61-77
Unrau, Y. and Grinnell Jr, R. (2005) The impact of social work research courses on research
self-efficacy for social work students. Social Work Education, 24, 6, 639-651
Waters, L.K., Martelli, T., Zakrajsek, T., and Popovich, P.M. (1988) Attitudes toward statistics:
An evaluation of multiple measures. Educational and Psychological Methods, 48, 513-516
Williams, M., Payne, G., Hodgkinson, L., and Poade, D. (2008) Does British sociology count?
Sociology students’ attitudes to quantitative methods Sociology 42, 5, 1003-1021
Zeidner, M. (1991) Statistics and mathematics anxiety in social science students: some
interesting parallels British journal of educational psychology, 61, 319-328
50