3.3. Thematic analysis of student suggestions
Students’ responses to “How can the learning agreement and its use in
this course be made more useful for future years?” were analysed
following a thematic approach. Two authors of the study coded the text
responses following a codebook (Table 3). In the following we report the
inter-rater agreement for each code individually using Cohen’s Kappa at
the end of the first round of coding across nine codes/categories. e.g.,Improve clarity k = 0.562 (Moderate agreement); More class
discussion k = 0.586 (Moderate agreement); No modifications k =
0 (No agreement); More student-centred k = 0 (No agreement);More strictly enforced k = 0.382 (Fair agreement); Adapt to
the context k = 1.00 (Almost perfect agreement); Keep it updatedk = 0.465 (Moderate agreement); Other k = 1.00 (Almost perfect
agreement); Easier to read k = 0.633 (Almost perfect agreement).
As it can be seen, No modifications and More
student-centred codes did not reach agreement between the two coders at
the end of the first round of coding. Improve clarity, More class
discussion, Keep it updated codes reached Moderate agreement.More strictly enforced code reached a Fair agreement. All
disagreements were thoroughly discussed and resolved during a second
round of coding to reach a consensus.
Results of the thematic analysis reveal that a relatively high number of
students indicated that no modifications are required (16.67%), a few
students did not provide an opinion (3.33%), some felt that strictly
enforcing the terms of the existing agreement would improve it (8.33%),
while others mentioned the need to keep adapting the learning agreement
to the context of specific courses and current societal views on GenAI
(5%). 51.66% of suggested improvements related to helping students
better understand and adhere to the learning agreement. Examples include
improving the clarity (28.33%) of the learning agreement with specific
examples, providing additional time in class to discuss it in more
detail (18.33%), incorporating regular reviews and updates to the
learning agreement to facilitate adherence (3.33%), and making the text
more concise to increase readability (1.67%). 11.67% of suggested
improvements related to better supporting student autonomy and
participation in defining and applying the learning agreement. In other
words, they suggest making the learning agreement more student-centred
rather than teacher-centred (11.67%).