




































 Simpson & Waye 38 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

“You Actually Learn Something”: Gathering Student Feedback Through Focus Group 

Research to Enhance Needs-Based Programming 

 

Allie Simpson 

York University 

 

Laurie Waye 

Northwest Community College 

 

Abstract 

 

In the spring of 2015, the Centre for Academic Communication (CAC) at the University of 

Victoria began a series of projects aimed at understanding the needs of undergraduate and 

graduate students with English as additional language (EAL), with the goal of increasing the 

effectiveness of the Centre’s programming. The first project, detailed in this article, concentrated 

on identifying student perceptions and use of the Centre’s programming and aimed to elicit 

suggestions as to how the CAC could better meet student needs. To do this, we facilitated two 

focus group interviews consisting of EAL graduate (N=6) and undergraduate (N=4) students. 

Participants responded that the timing of programming should better reflect their schedules, and 

that programming should be more discipline specific and better designed for graduate students. 

They also felt that they did not receive enough critical feedback and that there was a lack 

standardization across tutorials and workshops. However, the participants also felt that the tutors 

were helpful, the programming provided a good addition to their studies, and the supports 

increased their confidence. Two unexpected findings were that, generally, students accessed one 

kind of programming offered by the Centre, rather than taking advantage of the range of 

offerings, and that students had misconceptions about the Centre’s offerings and how to use 

them. It is hoped that this study will help inform other student academic support services about 

focus group research for the purposes of program evaluation and collecting student feedback.  

 

Introduction 

 

Since 2007, the University of Victoria has provided academic writing skill support to all students 

at the undergraduate and graduate levels through its Writing Centre. In 2014, the Writing Centre 

grew into the Centre for Academic Communication (CAC), with a broader mandate to teach 

other academic communication strategies in addition to writing, such as reading, presenting, and 

understanding university expectations and academic integrity. This growth was also designed to 

better support the burgeoning number of students attending the university who use English as an 

additional language (EAL). Both authors were involved in the transition of the Writing Centre 

into the Centre for Academic Communication, including the program design and evaluation 

components. 

 

In the 2014–2015 academic year, the CAC held over 4200 one-on-one appointments, the 

largest number held in the history of the Centre. Furthermore, during this period other 

programming such as the graduate writing room, drop-in help zones, and grammar and other 

English for academic purposes workshops assisted over 650 students. In addition to an increase 

in visits, the CAC also experienced a shift in student demographics, with more graduate students 



 Simpson & Waye 39 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

and more students with EAL visiting than in previous years. In order to understand the needs and 

characteristics of this growing and dynamic population, the CAC conducted a qualitative 

research project to supplement the vast amount of quantitative data that is regularly collected 

though our centre’s scheduling software and through periodic anonymous surveys.  

 

Writing Centre Research in Relation to the Current Study 

 

Over the past decade, there have been many areas of focus with respect to writing centre (WC) 

research. One area that has been studied is students’ perceptions and expectations of academic 

communication support and the implications of these perceptions for WCs. For example, Moussu 

(2013) notes that, in regards to writing, EAL students are often caught in opposing educational 

frameworks: whereas students perceive WC support as a type of “grammar repair shop” (p. 56), 

WC staff attend to grammatical errors only after addressing higher order concerns (e.g., 

paragraph structure, content understanding, and argument development). Given the conflict 

between students who may perceive their needs in relation to form over content (with a possible 

push from professors who have the same focus) and support staff who assist with the reverse, it 

is increasingly important to have a more complete understanding of students’ expectations and to 

develop strategies to respond to them while maintaining the educational framework of the Centre 

(Moussu, 2013).  

 

In addition, research has also focused on the role of assessing students’ academic 

communication needs for the purpose of program design (Huang, 2013). Huang (2013) notes that 

inquiry into student needs is a necessary action in the processes of program development, task 

design, and materials development. In fact, inquiry is a foundational step toward achieving an 

empirically substantiated approach that will most effectively support students’ skills 

development. Committed to evidence-based, reflective programming, we engaged in a reflection 

on the importance of both students’ expectations of WC support and their perceptions of their 

academic learning needs, in the context of our own dynamic student population. 

 

When considering our options for this initial research project, we chose to follow the lead 

of other writing centres throughout North America (Queen’s University, 2004; Cushman, Marx, 

Brower, Holahan & Boquet, 2005) and selected a focus group methodology. We felt this data 

collection technique valued students’ voices because focus group methodology is an “ideal” 

approach for exploring individuals’ needs, concerns, experiences, and perspectives (Kitzinger, 

2005, p 57); it also serves as a tool for program evaluation (William & Katz, 2010). Further, 

focus group methodology has the ability to utilize collaboration between participants to collect 

detailed responses to specific questions (Cushman et al., 2015) and, for this reason, can obtain a 

higher level of ecological validity not found in survey research or other research methods 

(Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). For these reasons, the focus groups were thought to be an 

effective and reliable method for collecting the data required to inform our future program 

design.  

 

Focus Group Methodology 

 

Following the guidelines outlined in Krueger and Casey (2009) and in Cushman et al. (2005), 

two one-hour focus groups were designed. In the spring of 2015, ethics approval was received 



 Simpson & Waye 40 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

and participants were recruited via ethics-approved posters that were placed around the CAC. 

The posters asked interested students to contact a staff member who was unaffiliated with the 

CAC. Following recruitment, the focus groups were facilitated by two moderators who were 

connected to the CAC. Throughout the focus groups, one moderator asked questions and 

interacted with participants who were seated at a round table while the other moderator took 

detailed notes from the corner of the room. Notes to record participants’ comments were taken 

on a laptop throughout the entirety of the focus group interviews. 

 

Participants  

 

Ten students expressed interest in the student recruitment posters. Participants’ backgrounds 

varied, with 60% of participants registered as graduate students and 40% as undergraduate 

students. The majority of participants were female (90%) with EAL (90%). One graduate student 

with English as a first language participated in the focus group. Table 1 outlines participant 

characteristics. 

 

Table 1 

 

Participant Characteristics (N = 10)  

Gender  
Female  (9) 90%  

Male  (1) 10%  

Level of study  
Undergraduate  (4) 40%  

Graduate  (6) 60%  

Year of Study  

1  (6) 30% (undergraduate); 30% (graduate)  

2  (3) 10% (undergraduate); 20% (graduate)  

5 and above  (1) 0% (undergraduate); 10% (graduate)  

Division  

Humanities  (3) 30%  

Social Sciences  (6) 60%  

Life Sciences  (1) 10%  

Language  
EL1 (1) 10%  

EAL  (9) 90% 

 

Questions 

 

As per the recommendations outlined by Cushman et al. (2005), ten main questions were used to 

prompt discussion (See Appendix 1). Questions fell into four main categories: 

 

1. Questions regarding students’ perceptions of helpfulness of programming: For example, 

“Considering the programming you have used, what did you find helpful and what did 

you find unhelpful?” 

2. Questions regarding students’ current CAC usage: For example, “What programming did 

you not attend, and why?” 

3. Questions regarding students perceived needs: For example, “To you, what makes a good 

workshop?” 



 Simpson & Waye 41 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

4. Questions aimed at eliciting suggestions: For example, “What do you think is the best 

way to get information to students about the programming that the CAC offers?” 

 

Analysis 

 

Data were analyzed following the classic data analysis strategy outlined in Krueger and Casey 

(2009), which consists of a systematic strategy involving the organization and categorization of 

transcripts and the coding of participants’ statements in terms of relevance, frequency, 

specificity, and emotion. Using this approach, data were first analyzed and independently coded 

by five members of the CAC team. Each member followed the same method, consisting of 

identifying key points, summarizing, and extracting support in the form of quotations from the 

transcripts. Next, the individual analyses were discussed and compared during a face-to-face 

meeting, which took place about a week after the data collection period. Discrepancies in coding 

were discussed until resolved and a final analysis was reached. The following sections detail the 

main findings of both focus groups. In order to preserve students’ voices, their comments are 

reported verbatim. As a result, some of the representative quotes may include variations on 

Standard English usage. Further, some quotations include topic insertions for clarity.  
 

Results 

 

Perceptions of Programming 

 

 Positive perceptions. The first category of questions concentrated on how students 

perceived and accessed services currently offered by the CAC. The services the students could 

reflect on included: 

 

 Workshops, including a stream for graduate students titled “Master Class” 

 One-on-one appointments, including 25-minute booked appointments, 15-minute drop-

ins, and asynchronous online feedback 

 The Conversation Café, a weekly opportunity for students to speak English in a friendly 

environment, and 

 An event held twice in 2015, the Intensive Lab in English for Academic Purposes 

(ILEAP), which featured one to three full days of learning and practice opportunities for 

undergraduate and graduate students. 

 

In terms of perception, the participants in both focus groups responded similarly: they mentioned 

that the CAC had been “helpful” to their learning. With respect to helpfulness, students most 

frequently mentioned workshops such as Master Class, grammar workshops, and the 

Conversation Café. In fact, the word “helpful” was used ten times in the focus group discussions: 

 

 ILEAP: 3 times 

 One-on-one tutorials: 2 times 

 Workshops: 5 times 

 

Table 2 lists student comments on the helpfulness of CAC programming. 

 



 Simpson & Waye 42 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

Table 2 

 

Representative Quotation by Type of Program  

ILEAP One-on-one tutorials Workshops 

“ILEAP was really helpful” 

“The conference [ILEAP] was 

really beneficial.” Student X 

says that s/he was looking for 

“tool sets to work with,” and 

the workshops in ILEAP gave 

him/her “really good ideas how 

to proceed.” S/he thinks 

ILEAP was “excellent!” 

“Talking about the 

problems ‘face to face’ 

can be very helpful.” 

“I went to some graduate-

specific workshops and 

actually found them to be 

helpful.” 

“The Café was helpful. We 

don’t speak much in our 

classes or labs. Café is a 

good place for people to 

communicate.” 

 

Alongside helpfulness, many students also noted experiencing a positive affective state, 

such as feeling comfortable: “I came here when I was taking English courses. I didn’t feel 

nervous at all.” Another student stated, “I feel very good. My classmates come too, so it is even 

better.” In addition, five main subthemes were identified in terms of student perceptions 

regarding the strengths of the CAC’s programming. 

 

Academic communication skill development. The main mandate of the CAC is to help 

students learn how to improve their academic communication skills. The data collected reflects 

this mandate: “You actually learn something. Teachers from high school only tell you 

something. Here they know where is the problem. They tell you to think about it. And then [they] 

help you revise your writing.”  

 

Improvement in grades. While an improvement in student grades is not part of the stated 

mandate of the Centre, students see an increase in assignment scores as proof of their growing 

mastery of academic communication skills. One participant shared that she came to the CAC for 

help with an assignment for a first-year English course. She said, “We chatted a lot while 

working on my writing. [The tutor] was friendly. I really liked it. The grades [I got for that 

course] were not bad.” 

 

Confidence building. In addition to teaching students how to develop their academic 

communication skills, programming is designed to help students feel more confident about their 

ability to learn. As one student said, “My first tutor was Susan, and she was super nice. We 

started by talking about our experiences in Canada. We talked about where we came from. She 

was very friendly. I was afraid at the beginning that my writing was really bad. But she 

encouraged me to read it out loud, and it helped me build my confidence.” Another student said, 

“no one had told me about [publishing] before, so I never even thought about publishing. That 

session gave me a lot of confidence.”  

 

 Social. Like improving confidence, providing opportunities for students to practice their 

spoken English is folded in to the CAC mandate. Said one student, “We don’t speak much in our 

classes or labs. Café is a good place for people to communicate.”  

 



 Simpson & Waye 43 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

 Perceptions of unhelpfulness. In addition to commenting on the CAC programming that 

participants felt was helpful, participants also commented on areas they felt were less helpful. 

Interestingly, unlike when discussing helpfulness, participants discussed aspects of programming 

they perceived as unhelpful instead of identifying specific programs. These comments centred 

mainly on four key program aspects: (1) timing, (2) lack of standardization in tutorials, (3) 

workshop content that is too basic, and (4) a lack of feedback. 

 

Timing and Flexibility. The comments students made demonstrated a diverse understanding 

of how one-on-one tutorials can and should be use. For example, students said, 

 

 “[The tutorials] are a bit short. I often cannot finish an essay during the one tutorial and I 

have to rebook.” 

 “I have so many questions, and there is no time” 

 “I always have an artificial hesitancy to use the one-on-ones, as there are only ten 

[appointments allowed per semester].” 

 

While we had designed tutorials to be focused on one or two areas of support (e.g., 

developing a thesis statement and identifying a couple of error patterns), students believed the 

tutorial was for going through their assignments from beginning to end. As well, the CAC point 

of view is that a tutorial is for helping support students strategically, instead of fully, while the 

participants’ comments demonstrated a different perspective.  

 

When offerings were scheduled was also a point of discussion. Workshops at the CAC have 

suffered from less than robust attendance despite attempts to schedule them when students are 

free. However, a participant added another dimension to the concept of timing by pointing out 

that it is not simply when a workshop is offered in the day, but when in a student’s learning it is 

offered: “Timing can be tricky. If you are not working on assignments, no matter how useful, the 

workshops are not very helpful. You might learn good things, but you will forget them.” 

 

 Lack of standardization. One of the issues participants discussed in working with 

different tutors is the lack of standardization from tutor to tutor. While a large staff means that 

the CAC can offer tutors who represent a variety of disciplines and skill sets, students 

commented on the lack of consistency between tutors. The participants stated that they liked the 

tutorials but were sometimes “confused about different methods of teaching” because “tutors 

have different approaches, sometimes to the point that they are conflicting. So it gets confusing.” 

 

 Workshop content is too basic or too general.  The attempt to create workshop material 

that is general and helpful fell short. As one student noted, “Some [workshops] are very 

introductory. [I] don’t know how to use the points.” 

 

 Not enough constructive feedback. Like the workshop content, the feedback provided in 

tutorials and in workshops did not satisfy the participants. One participant felt he could not 

“make improvement[s] in the Café: there is no feedback, no summary, and no advice.” Another 

reflected that “online tutoring was not very useful, as the feedback was too general.” Like the 

purpose of tutorials, the CAC’s approach to feedback is different than what the students would 

like or, at a minimum, has not been clearly communicated.  



 Simpson & Waye 44 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

 Overall, participants in both focus groups discussed the CAC and its programming 

favourably, citing that their experiences had been positive and that the CAC programming had 

been beneficial to their learning. With respect to improvements, timing, feedback, and a lack of 

standardization between tutorials were discussed most frequently in both focus groups. 

 

Usage of CAC Programs 

 

In terms of student usage of CAC programs, students reported accessing services in a variety of 

ways, with participants citing regular attendance in workshops, one-on-one tutoring, and/or 

events. Although a few participants indicated a range of attendance in different programs, many 

expressed that they had had rather limited experience with programs and services at the CAC and 

were surprised to learn about the range of programs that were offered. For example, when given 

a CAC program brochure and asked to comment on which programming they had attended, 

many participants admitted that they had “never heard about” some of the programs.  

 

In addition to a lack of awareness, participants also cited timing and “schedule conflict” 

as a barrier to program access, with one student stating, that “I even missed some of my classes 

to attend the workshops.” Participants agreed that timing was a key obstacle: course work and 

practicums prevented them from accessing a majority of the weekly CAC programs they had 

wanted to attend. 

 

Perceived Needs 

 

In addition to exploring their perceptions of CAC programming and program usage, participants 

were also asked to discuss their perceived needs in the context of academic communication 

support. Three main themes were identified in terms of perceived needs: (1) discipline-specific 

support, (2) graduate-specific help, and (3) “other” support. 

 

 Discipline-specific support. Similar to the findings of Huang (2011), our study showed 

that a number of students identified needing more discipline-specific support. Students claimed 

that they “need someone who knows stuff from their field.”   

 

 Graduate-specific help. In addition, the graduate students who participated in the focus 

groups expressed a need for increased support, specifically with respect to (1) thesis writing, (2) 

oral defence and presentation support, and (3) goal setting. 

 

 Thesis writing support. There was an overwhelming consensus among graduate students 

regarding a need for thesis writing support. Participants indicated that they felt confused by the 

writing process “in general” and “[wished] there could be more help for thesis writing.” 

Participants identified proposal and methodology writing as areas of specific concern and 

specified that they would appreciate workshops that addressed these issues as well as workshops 

that presented the “big picture of how to tackle a general issue like thesis writing.” 

 

 Oral defence and presentation support. Similarly, there was agreement among many of 

the graduate student participants regarding a need for “help with oral defence and presentation.” 



 Simpson & Waye 45 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

Although they discussed it less than thesis-writing support, participants indicated that if they 

were aware of an oral defence workshop, they would “come for that.”  

 

Goal-setting support. Lastly, an interesting discussion arose after one participant 

expressed a need for goal setting and accountability support. The participant mentioned that she 

would like to have someone who knows her goals and plans and would remind her of them to 

keep her accountable. In essence, this participant indicated that she wanted this service to be a 

replacement for her supervisor, who she felt did not follow up on her work.  

 

Other support 

 

In addition to the perceived needs discussed above, participants also mentioned other areas they 

believe they need support for or specific topics they would like the CAC to cover. These topics 

are described in Table 3. While some of these suggestions are addressed by other campus support 

units, the CAC team can consider targeting its programming to meet these perceived needs. The 

CAC team can also consider how to advertise the other services on campus that provide training 

and practice in other supports, such as Career Services and the Learning Strategist program. 

 

Table 3 

 

Perceived Areas of Need 

Speaking Reading Professional Skills 

   

“Academic speaking” 

 

“Casual speaking”  

 

“Pronunciation clinic” 

 “Vocabulary help”" 

“Technical reading” 

“Interviews”  

“Career and professional 

related skills” 

 

Participant Suggestions  

 

When asked for suggestions as to how the CAC can be improved, participants offered a variety 

of ideas, the majority of which centred on CAC–student communication and the timing, delivery, 

structure, and content of workshops.   

 

 CAC-Student Communication. 

 

 Tutors’ Profiles and Workshops. There was a general consensus among participants 

regarding the appreciation for information available online regarding tutors’ backgrounds and 

skill sets. Participants suggested that this type of information informs their decisions regarding 

which programs to attend and can help them develop a rapport with tutors. In one of the focus 

groups, participants suggested that an online link connecting the workshops and the tutors’ 

profiles would allow students to know “who is doing what.” In terms of one-on-one tutorials, 

participants agreed that the success of the tutorials depends on the chemistry between tutors and 

students. They argued that “it’s tricky to get to know the tutors,” and having as much information 

as possible can help them get to know the CAC staff before attending tutorials and workshops.  



 Simpson & Waye 46 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

 Advertising. Many participants acknowledged their lack of awareness regarding the 

programming that the CAC offers. Participants agreed that better advertising would help them 

gain awareness of the types of programs offered. Participants offered many suggestions as to 

which advertising methods would be the most effective for them. These suggestions included the 

following, some of which we currently engage in, and others that we had not considered. 

 

 Electronic communication, such as emails, including departmental emails, the CAC 

website, and social media 

 Visual displays, such as posters around professors’ offices, reminders of upcoming 

offerings on classroom whiteboards, and flyers regarding specific services 

 More targeted advertising, such as an explanation of why a workshop topic should matter 

to them, and of the daily schedule of offerings 

 

 Timing. As mentioned previously, the timing of workshops was a frequently recurring 

area of discussion in both focus groups. A majority of participants believed that most of the 

programming happens in the morning and mid-day, when students are in class, despite much of 

CAC programming being scheduled for 4pm–6pm on weekdays. Participants suggested that 

either early morning, later in the afternoons, or on weekends would be a more effective time to 

host workshops. As well, participants indicated that a tutorial is not long enough, despite their 

ability to book two 25-minute sessions back to back; this information was not known by the 

participants. These two timing issues, scheduling of programming and length of tutorials, may be 

addressed at least in part with better communication. This was, in fact, one of the biggest 

surprises in our focus group findings: we had thought we were advertising our programming 

clearly to students, but the data indicate that we were not. In addition, it was not only what 

programming was available, but also how it should be used, that was not communicated clearly 

to students. 

 

 Delivery of content. Lastly, when asked for suggestions as to how to make workshops 

more effective, students mentioned three main categories: (1) delivery, (2) structure, and (3) 

content, outlined in Table 4, below. 

 

Table 4 

 

Suggestions for Increasing Effectiveness of Workshops 

Delivery  Structure Content 

   

“Clear agenda, description 

of the takeaways” 

 “Exercise time” 

 

“Participants’ involvement 

in the activity” 

 “Examples” 

 

“Handouts, something that 

we can take away” 

 

 Again, these results were surprising to us because we had thought that the workshops 

were well designed, provided opportunities to apply new learning, used examples, and used 

handouts. However, the data indicate that either these design aspects were not included in all 

workshops, or that students were not able to recall these components. To apply these findings, 

then, requires two activities: ensuring that, when workshops are developed, these aspects of what 



 Simpson & Waye 47 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

students are looking for in workshops are included, and ensuring that all workshops in fact have 

these characteristics each time they are offered.  

 

Limitations  

 

Although focus group interviews have been widely used due to their ability to provide insights 

into “what people think” (Kitzinger, 1995, p. 299), this method has also been subject to a number 

of criticisms. For example, Krueger and Casey (2009) note that focus group data can be subject 

to dominant individuals within the focus groups and that there is a tendency for participants to 

make up answers where limited experience is perceived. While the first criticism may have been 

slightly applicable to our data collection, the second was definitely applicable: it was clear that 

instead of collecting information on what students thought about our programming, we collected 

information on what students thought they knew about our programming. Good examples of this 

are students stating that tutorials are limited to 25 minutes, rather than 50 minutes, and that 

programming is held only during daytime hours.  

 

In addition, it is important to acknowledge that the findings of this study represent the 

opinions of a limited sample and may not extend to those of the entire student population. A 

wider range of participants would have been helpful, too, to determine if similar findings would 

be repeated, if further issues would arise, and if the recommendations would be the same. 

Further, when identifying or reflecting on practical suggestions based on these data, it is critical 

to remain cognizant of what the CAC can practically do in terms of resource and staff 

availability and in terms of the scope and mandate of the Centre. 

 

Moreover, the authors note that the findings of this study may be of limited interest to a 

broader community, but they hope this study will help inform other student academic support 

services about how to engage in focus group research for the purposes of program evaluation and 

collecting student feedback. 

 

Practical Suggestions 

 

Three themes arose from our data analysis: time, advertising, and specialization. In the simplest 

form, students were not fully aware of when services were offered and how to use them to their 

best advantage (an advertising issue), students felt that services should be scheduled in 

accordance with when they are not in class (a timing issue), and students felt the offerings should 

be less general and more suited to both the needs of their student population (e.g., graduate 

students) and their areas of study (a specialization issue).  

 

Time: understanding student perceptions of time and timing 

 

In line with Huang’s (2011) findings, participants’ comments indicated that timing was one of 

the largest issues in terms of both one-on-one tutoring sessions and workshops. Based on 

participants’ comments, the CAC could better advertise students’ ability to book two 

appointments back to back to create a 50-minute one-on-one tutorial, which would address 

student perceptions that tutorials are not long enough. Further, a clearer communication of the 

Centre’s educational philosophy could also address perceptions of programming length. By 



 Simpson & Waye 48 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

better communicating the CAC’s emphasis on strategy development (i.e., the identification of a 

few reoccurring organizational issues and the instruction regarding strategies to identify and 

improve them), and not on “full” support (i.e., reviewing an entire paper for organizational issues 

and correcting every issue), we might be able to adjust students’ perceptions regarding time.  

 

In terms of workshop timing, the CAC could also consider hosting programming in the 

early mornings or on weekends to decrease instances of scheduling conflicts and other barriers to 

access. However, given that the late afternoon programming offered by the CAC has not had 

great uptake, it may be more of an issue of advertising. Further inquiry into the issue of timing is 

clearly required.  

 

Advertising: helping students know about all the programming options 

 

Also echoing the findings of Huang (2011), the CAC may consider creating more means to raise 

students’ awareness of programming offered by the CAC. Despite the fact that many of the 

participants’ advertising suggestions are strategies the CAC is already employing, it is now 

obvious that programming information is not reaching students, even those who regularly use 

some of the CAC services. For instance, many students have one-on-one tutorials as their first 

point of entry to the CAC. For this reason, training tutors to consistently overview other CAC 

programs with students may be an effective way to increase students’ awareness of 

programming. As well, the CAC should consider alternate methods of advertising to help 

students understand the range of programming available, its schedule, and how it is best used. 

For example, while a 25-minute tutorial on a presentation a student is preparing may be 

sufficient from the tutor’s point of view, the expectations of how much help a tutor can and 

should give could be better communicated to students both through advertising and through an 

explicit conversation at the beginning of each tutorial. 

 

Different means of advertising can be considered as well. Social media and the CAC’s 

website are likely two underutilized methods of advertising. In particular, the website and the 

schedule could have a closer link by connecting specific tutors to the workshops they are 

providing, allowing students to feel connected to the tutor in advance and to select workshops 

based on positive interactions they have had with tutors in the past. In addition, our use of print 

advertising has been light, due to environmental concerns, but perhaps a return to a range of 

flyers and posters would be beneficial for our students. Emails could be sent to students more 

regularly, and we could explore how to connect with professors more strategically to have them 

send out advertising about CAC services to their students.  

 

Specializing: considering discipline-specific programming 

 

Considering the limited resources available, many administrators would agree that hosting 

programs that are applicable to a majority of students instead of programs focused on specific 

disciplines is a more effective use of a centre’s resources. As well, our Centre, like others, is 

aware of the fine line between the support it provides graduate students and the support 

supervisors provide, or should provide. Like most institutions, the University of Victoria has a 

broad base of student support with lines indicating where the help of one department ends and 

another starts. However, based on the findings of this study, there is a clear desire for discipline-



 Simpson & Waye 49 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

specific support, and going forward it may be worth reflecting on the feasibility of designing and 

implementing academic communication support programs for certain disciplines. As well, based 

on our findings, the Centre will offer a pilot program offering workshops on demand in 

departments to provide more specialized, contextualized student academic support, and a second 

pilot program to support graduate-level presentation skill development; future research on these 

pilots will be required. 

 

Other recommendations found in the data include: 

 

 Standardization of services: Through tutor training, hands-on management, and regular 

program evaluation, the tutorials and workshops could achieve a greater standardization. 

 Consideration of feedback: While providing feedback is part of the design of our 

programs, we may want to consider providing more feedback, more explicitly. 

 Consideration of tutorial limits: A number of years ago, there was no limit to the 

number of one-on-one tutorials a student could have. However, with a significant 

increase in students at the university, and EAL students in particular, a limit of 10 

sessions per semester was instituted. While very few students use their maximum 10 

sessions per semester, it may be that the restriction places a psychological barrier on 

students, causing them to attend fewer sessions than they would benefit from. 

 

Conclusion 

 

Despite the drawbacks, the use of focus groups to supplement our quantitative data collected 

through usage statistics and anonymous surveys provided important insights into our EAL 

students’ perspectives, perceived academic communication support needs, and use of our 

Centre’s programs. These perspectives and other findings allow the CAC to take a more 

evidence-based approach to making programmatic and administrative decisions. In addition, the 

results of this study can serve as parameters when implementing program changes and can also 

help affirm and empirically substantiate the CAC’s programming. In turn, this practice of 

evidence-based programming can perhaps help to secure future resources (Procter, 2011). And, 

when we look to the horizon and see the growth in government interest in learning outcomes, it 

seems that program evaluation, including both qualitative and quantitative feedback, is poised to 

play a more central role in the development and maintenance of EAL support programming at 

the university level.   

 

References 

 

Cushman, T., Marx, L., Brower, C., Holahan, K., & Boquet, E. (2005). Using Focus Groups to 

Assess Writing Center Effectiveness. The Writing Lab Newsletter 29(7), 1-5.  

Huang. L-S. (2011). Are we having the effect we want? Implementing outcomes assessment in 

an academic English language-support unit using a multi-component approach. WAP 

Journal, 35(1), 11-45. 

Huang, L. (2013). Academic English is No One’s Mother Tongue: Graduate and Undergraduate 

Students’ Academic English Language-learning Needs from Students’ and Instructors’ 

Perspectives. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 1(2). 

doi:10.14297/jpaap.v1i2.67 

https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v29/29.7.pdf


 Simpson & Waye 50 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 1 Number 1 (2016): 38-50 

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal 

(Clinical Research Ed.), 311(7000), 299-302. 

Kitzinger, J. (2005). Focus Group Research: using group dynamics to explore perceptions, 

experiences and understandings. In I. Holloway (Ed.), Qualitative Research in Health 

Care (56-6). Maidenhead, Berks, England; New York: Open University Press. 

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied search (4th 

ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. 

Moussu, L. (2013). Let's talk! ESL students' needs and writing centre philosophy. TESL Canada 

Journal, 30 (2), 55. 

Procter, M. (2011). Talking the talk and walking the walk: Establishing the role of  

writing centres. In D. Starke-Meyerring, A. Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne, & L. 

Yousoubova (Eds.), Writing in knowledge societies (pp. 415-440). Fort Collins, CO: 

WAC Clearinghouse.  

Stewart, D., & Shamdasani, P. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury 

Park, CA: Sage.  

Queen's Library Learning Commons Project Undergraduate Student Focus Groups. (2004). 

Retrieved from http://library.queensu.ca/learningcommons/files/focusgroup_und.pdf 

Williams, A., & Katz, L. (2001). The Use of Focus Group Methodology in Education: Some 

Theoretical and Practical Considerations, 5(3). IEJLL: International Electronic Journal 

for Leadership in Learning, 5. Retrieved from 

http://iejll.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ijll/article/view/496 

 

Appendix 1: Questions  

 

1. Considering the programming you have used, what did you find helpful? 

2. What programming was less helpful? We’d really like to know. 

3. What programming did you not attend, and why? 

4. What about the timing of the programming? 

5. What programming do you wish the CAC offered? 

6. Let’s focus on the workshops now. Which topics were useful? (students are handed the 

brochure) 

7. Still thinking about the workshops, which topics would you like to see? 

8. To you, what makes a good workshop? Think about handouts, interaction with other 

students, when they’re offered, and so on. 

9. Have you used any of the drop-in zones? What did you like or not like about them? 

10. What do you think is the best way to get information to students about the programming that 

the CAC offers? 

11. What else would you like us to know about the CAC and its programs? 

 

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 
Copyright rests with the authors. 

http://library.queensu.ca/learningcommons/files/focusgroup_und.pdf
http://iejll.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ijll/article/view/496
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

