As part of the presentation of findings involved interpretation then the purpose of this chapter is to draw together the various elements of the research in relation to the major foci of the study – student engagement and their construction of ‘community’. The heading is a misnomer it is all subjective until it is read by someone else.
Related to research question
At the start of this research these were some of the questions asked:
Is there any credence to the terms passive, intense, independent, and collaborative in terms of student engagement?
Do lecturers and students agree on the meaning of these terms? Can students collaborate in their learning?
Can collaboration on discussion boards lead to deeper learning? How do students construct their ideas of community?
My reading of the data in relation to Coates (2007) typology of student engagement is that these terms make more sense in the abstract rather than in any real practical sense of describing actual student behaviour. As there is little agreement in applying them to student’s actual online contributions they lack the validity they claim. There is more opportunity for misunderstanding in their application than agreement and they limit our perception of actual learning. The low inter-rater agreement between students and lecturers indicates that there is little agreement on their meaning. There exists a danger of typifying particular student behaviour without any relation to how the student sees it. A broader range of engagement is indicated to encompass the range of ways that students engage in learning. As students indicated these may include the addition of adaptive to the list as students will change their engagement to meet the demands of the situation.
The distinction between social and academic styles in relation to this typology is also unwarranted as the qualitative analysis of discussion threads demonstrated that social discourse plays a role in student collaboration. Further examination of the type of discourse indicates that by learning to post proposals and responses in the early stages
these can influence later discussion through the practice of cooperative and collaborative communication. This analysis also showed that the deeper learning and knowledge construction in an online discussion forum can be produced by collaborative learning if supported by lecturers. Such knowledge construction requires collaboration over time and with stimulating input from lecturers that challenges student thinking. A vital aspect of student learning supported by the findings is the emphasis on practical learning being a focus for engagement. Thus, the greatest activity in the discussion boards was found when students collaborated to plan an exhibition.
The ways that students construct ‘community’ in interviews with the researcher are also collaborations in knowledge construction between the researcher and the interviewee. Was it possible that I was talking out loud my ideas of community just as much as the students in these dialogues? Nunkoosing (2005) alerts us to the cumulative effect of interviews in developing the interviewer’s understanding of a topic.
It seems to me that only grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1968; Strauss and Corbin, 1991), in its principles of theoretical sampling, acknowledges that the process of successive interviews has the capacity to change the knowledge of the interviewer. (p.706)
My concept map of ‘community’ has developed through these discussions with students and it feels that I have a different construction that respects the variety of student perspectives. As these students had varying degrees of engagement with a variety of learning experiences they use different ideas to produce their understanding of community.
Related to other methods and literature
There was evidence that some students had developed an acceptance of different viewpoints through discussion and practical experience in working in community projects which shows that the aims of the module can be achieved. These students could act as the expert other in the Zone of Proximal Development and facilitate other student’s learning. As Paulus (2004) discovered in her study being uncertain and willing to accept alternative viewpoints has a vital role in knowledge construction:
However, in this study it became clear that initial uncertainty was as important as certainty. Members expressed their uncertainty about an issue or simply identified the possibility of different viewpoints, utilizing functional moves such as eliciting feedback, asking questions and responding to questions. Members valued such expressions of different opinions and diverse perspectives.(p626)
D iffere nt typ es C lau strop hobic Broa der p erspe ctive Course he lped G o ba ck to A frica R a cism Relax /anoth er vie w Open socie ty C ha ng e ju st is Clo se knit know e ach oth er R oo m to b e d iffe ren t Nos ey p eopl e Morals in chec k
Figure 15: A rough concept map for supporting student learning using the ZPD
As Stahl (2009a) has suggested the small group provides the greatest potential for collaborative learning I produce a concept map combining four individual student maps with indications of potential discussion points for students to explore their understanding of community (see Figure 15). Rather than focusing on challenge and conflicting views as a way to promote further learning as highlighted by Gunawardena, et al. (1997) our efforts as teachers should support openness to explore different views in our learners. Completing the quote from Paulus (2004 ) :
…Thus, the manner in which members socially constructed knowledge did not fit the Gunawardena et al. (1997) model. The emphasis is not on creating arguments and justifying one's own position; rather, together through interaction groups sought connection with each other (p.626)
In the concept map above there are a number of topics to explore so that each student can contribute to their developing understanding of community by seeking ways to understand each other’s viewpoints rather than sticking to rigid preconceived ideas. As a teacher I would seek ways to enable Karen to explore alternative viewpoints proposed by others in the group of students to enable movement to a broader perspective. Perhaps what is required is to allow each group member to question and challenge each other with respect that being critical is useful and refers to a person’s statements not the person uttering them. As a teacher I have to enable each student to feel comfortable leading and following discussion, both asking questions and seeking to provide answers. This requires active listening by us all.
Synthesis
In drawing together the various strands of this research I feel I can make a strong argument that student engagement is multi-faceted and requires an examination of the procedures we use to assess it as well as how we construct it in the context of Higher Education. A learner focused approach as presented in this participatory framework has found qualitative evidence to counter superficial, institutional driven quantitative evidence for a student typology. A strong argument for collaborative learning is supported by qualitative analysis of online discussion and a supportive learning framework has arisen out of conceptual analysis of the social construction of ‘community’ by a group of students in a Community Based (Service) Learning module.