This collection is licenced under a Creative Commons licence. The collection may be reproduced for non-commerical use and without modification, providing that copyright is acknowledged.
What Can Politics Academic Practice Learn from the Experience Politics Students Have of Expressing Their Political Views?The aim of the research is to identify implications for the practice of Politics academics from the experience their students have of expressing their political views. This exploratory study is set within the wider debate of power and performativity in the HE classroom. It is situated in a study of practice and perceptions in one Department at the University of Chester and conducted through a review of the literature and empirical qualitative research with both Politics students and Politics academics. The research found that while Politics students wish to express their political views, these may not be their actual political views. Politics students indicate that the Politics academic can affect their expression of political views. They prefer academics who express their own political views and they do not like politically neutral academics. They may wish to know an academic’s political views in order to gain advantage for themselves. Knowing an academic’s political views enables the student to avoid expressing political views which some Politics academics find offensive. The research highlights the part played by power and performativity in the expressing of the Politics student’s political views and identifies some of the complexities arising from this. The practice outcomes provide guidance on how Politics academics can approach the issue of the Politics student’s expression of political views. This single case study’s value lies in these contributions to wider practice. Research is identified which will explore the findings further.
Client Perspectives and Experiences of CongruenceThis small scale enquiry looks at the value of Rogers’ concept of congruence from the perspectives and experiences of clients rather than those of the counsellor, as, it is the view of the author that the value of congruence is only established if it is perceived so by clients. It contributes to the debate about Rogers’ definition of congruence and offers a research informed perspective, relevant to a range of therapeutic interventions, of the nature and function of congruence in the counsellor-client relationship. The study involved me as the researcher and six participants from two cultural backgrounds who had responded to a leaflet after having experienced therapy with a qualified counsellor other than me. A pilot study was carried out followed by six semi-structured, face-to-face and telephone interviews that were transcribed and analysed using a qualitative, thematic analysis approach. A decision was made to divide participants into those who had experienced person-centred counselling and those who had experienced CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) or integrative therapy. This was not an original decision but one that was made during the study in order to compare the presence and the importance of congruence in different models of therapy. Results revealed that there were terms that were central to, related to and unrelated to Rogers’ definition of congruence. Factors that were centrally related to congruence were: connection and demeanour. Therapist facilitative factors that were tangentially related to congruence were: respect; understanding; empathy; self-disclosure; trust; body language; conveying emotion and caring. Participants also referred to non-related facets such as therapist competence. Due to the majority of codes being related to congruence, this led to the conclusion that participants held a wide definition of the concept, implied by proxy (as a substitute). Participants confirmed the value of congruence, suggesting that Rogers’ theory, that is, that therapist congruence is necessary for positive growth to occur in clients, is important in counselling (Rogers, 1957). Congruence therefore cannot be described as an outdated theory or professional ideology but as a key concept that is prized and valued in modern day therapy. This study offers an original contribution to knowledge and professional practice because it provides not professionals but clients with the opportunity to have their voices heard. It allows service-users to put into words their experiences, thereby offering a better understanding of the phenomenon of congruence. The study has therefore allowed the provision for a more empowering, research-informed counsellor-client experience. A second claim to the study being unique and a valid contribution to knowledge is that the research has a particular focus on Rogers’ definition of congruence and enquires if this is relevant for service-users as opposed to service-providers.
Correctness and speed of dyslexics and non-dyslexics on the four mathematical operationsThis research describes an investigation of the correctness and speed of response that dyslexic children and matched controls perform on mathematical calculations involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. The participants were 120 boys divided into three age bands ranging from 9:5 - 11:4, 11:5 - 13:4 and 13:5 - 15:4 years of age of whom 60 were dyslexic and 60 non-dyslexic. Two sets of 144 multiplication sums, two sets of 75 addition and 75 subtraction sums and one set of 144 division sums were presented. In the case of multiplication and division, the numbers ranged from 1 to 12; in the case of addition and subtraction two separate effects were examined, viz. sums involving high and low addends / subtrahends in combination with sums that did and did not cross the ten barrier. Results showed that dyslexics in all age bands took longer and made fewer correct responses than non-dyslexics on all four mathematical operations. The performance of the younger dyslexics was differentially disadvantaged when compared to non-dyslexics and older dyslexics on speed and correctness. The dyslexics performed less well when no obvious algorithm was available to them and when answering questions that involved crossing the ten barrier. The dyslexics were less able, in all age bands, than non-dyslexics to respond instantaneously. The overall trend with both groups was an increase in scores with age; however on some occasions the dyslexics in the old age band did not perform as well as those in the middle-age band suggesting practice and automaticity effects. The order of difficulty (from greatest to least) of the four mathematical operations for dyslexics, as judged by number of correct responses was: division, subtraction, multiplication and addition. For the non-dyslexics this was: subtraction, division, multiplication and addition. For speed the order for both the dyslexics and non-dyslexics was: subtraction, addition, division and multiplication.