A core component for deep, transformational learning was critical reflection and undertaking the writing process strengthened reflection through the tangible externalisation of ideas onto the page, providing a map of cognition (Alamargot & Fayol, 2009). The exploration of ideas externally through writing supported the manipulation and linking of these without the sustained demand of recall from memory as the ideas and reflections of the writing were literally, there in front of the learners. Taylor (2009, p. 9) argues that this is particularly so for tacit knowledge, where phenomena can be recorded in writing and then shared with self and others and returned to through the process of continued reflection. For FdA learners, there is evidence that these particular learners show more evidence of deep learning than traditional students (Nzekwe-Excel, 2012). This may be attributed to their experience in practice as illustrated with some of the participants in this study where connections between theory and practice have been made along with the continued application of these within their role in the setting. As such, FdA learners are able to reflect in the symbiotic way discussed earlier in this chapter and throughout the thesis, to become increasingly more critical in their reflections in a self-reinforcing, reflexive process. This must also be so in relation to their academic writing where the process of continued, critical reflection not only on what they are writing but also in terms of how they are writing.
168 A critical path when mining and analysing data is in the answering of the research questions. This next section of the chapter builds on the previous discussion regarding metacognitive awareness and investigates the data specifically in relation to the two research questions of whether the participants’ awareness of metacognitive strategies developed over time and the learners’ capacity to evaluate their own academic writing over the duration of the two year programme. Data from the radar graph analysis of the central executive category, where the participant demonstrated their awareness of the processes they used, showed no change in average score after tutorial 1 where for the final three tutorials, the average remained static at 5.5 which was surprisingly consistent across the sample (Appendix H). There was a slight elevation in the average between tutorial 1 and 2 (5.0 to 5.5) which was, to some extent, expected following the first module assignments and a shift in understanding of the demands of academic writing. Irrespective of the static average score across the sample, there were some variations that were worthy of note. Tutorial 3 showed the highest proportion of learners whose metacognitive awareness dropped (n= 5). This was due to the perceived increase in challenge between years one and two as discussed previously. Mariea was the only participant to drop in terms of awareness of metacognitive strategies between tutorials 2 and 3 and to have had a correlated drop (lower than 0.5%) in grades at this point in her studies. As discussed earlier, Mariea had just had a baby and her mental and physical energies were taken up with caring for her. The only other learner whose grades dropped between tutorial 2 and 3 and whose awareness of the strategies used rose at this time, was Laura. Like Mariea, Laura had had other pressures on her during this phase as she had begun a new job as a manager in a setting. The drop in grades at tutorial 3, triggered an elevation in grades, the highest across the two years for Laura evident at tutorial 4. She talked about the challenge of settling into the new academic year at level 5 and when I asked if she was doing anything differently from her approach to the assignments in year one, she stated:
169 ‘Not that I’ve particularly noticed, I’d just say I’m a bit more
organised with stuff now…I was a lot more laid back before. I start now by going through the marking criteria and look at what the- the sort of fifty to sixty per cent is, I think- I don’t wanna look at the sixties and above cos I’m not even bothered, so I look in the fifties and then look at tweaking to get it in the sixties then great but…so I guess that’s something slightly different that I do now’ (Transcript 3, Laura).
In tutorial 4, Laura elaborated further to share her understanding that the less pressure to do well that she put on herself, the better she did. The acknowledgement in tutorial 3 that she had shifted the expectations of herself in terms of the grades she wanted to achieve had the overall effect of an elevated performance, this is discussed later in this chapter. Laura’s awareness of metacognitive strategies continued to elevate in the second year from the lowest score at the end of the first year showing a qualitative evaluation of performance linked to awareness of metacognitive strategies.
Amber had struggled to evaluate her own performance throughout the two years on the programme and she discussed the feedback from various markers in the tutorials in terms of whether the marker ‘liked’ her work, or not:
‘…they said it read well, but there’s obviously some of the things that er- you know, obviously they don’t like’ (Transcript 2, Amber).
Discussion focused on how Amber had sent her work to the module tutor, prior to final submission, who had said the work was in line with the assessment task, and the marker (not the module tutor) had made a negative comment against this section in Amber’s work. Amber expressed her frustration at this inconsistency and she commented that other learners on the programme ‘moan [ed]’ about it too (Transcript 2, Amber). This commentary from Amber exemplified the perceived variations between markers of learners’ work and her use of the word ‘like’ is replicated in research by Lillis (2001, p. 61) whose participants’ perceptions, like Amber, was that their success or failure in an assessment was dependent on the
170 individual tutors’ ‘quirks’ (ibid.) which were far from transparent (see page 70). The assignment that Amber thought she had done well in was the one, out of the two, that she did the least well in and vice versa. The ambiguity and perceived, uncommunicated expectations between the markers’ expectations was problematic for Amber. On the other hand, this may be attributed to personal differences in academic writing as all writers have their own histories and cultural contexts for their writing style (Fairclough, 1989). Amber’s unease about this perceived inconsistency was evidence of how learners are at the liberties of individual markers and the gatekeeping role that the academy collectively holds. Bourdieu (1991, p. 5), as discussed on page 73, argues that such pedagogical action represents symbolic power in so far as it is ‘the imposition of a cultural arbitrary by an arbitrary power’. However, whilst symbolic power is acknowledged in the role of gatekeeper, the challenge for the academy, and possibly its strength, is that it represents different academic discourses, different voices, in a heterogeneous way that embraces the multiple realities through the writing of those within it. Although the power of the thinking, evident in writing, is restricted by the different rhetoric of academic writing and the multiplicities of what that is or represents. For Amber, the ambiguities from the different expectations by academic professionals of the demands of the task were frustrating and she acknowledged that it was challenging for her to know when she had done well. By tutorial 3, Amber was able to state that an assignment that was graded at 70% was the ‘best thing’ she had ever written, although when asked why, she was unable to say and she asked me what was the best thing in it. In our discussion, she commented that it was the ‘wrapping it’ (Transcript 3, Amber) that had made her work ‘good’. When I asked what she meant, she said:
‘...it is about wrapping it, sometimes what I do is write something, put it away for a few days, then get it out, cos I end up with like whole boxes of information, then it’s about putting them into each other, so I’ve sort of got that skill, I won’t say it’s perfect cos it’s not’ (Transcript 3, Amber).
171 In using the term ‘wrapping it’, Amber referred to the linking of theoretical frameworks and she offered an example of comparing and contrasting two different concepts. She was clear that this was not easy and the concepts she was exploring had to be interesting to her for her to make those connections. This resonates with the links between purpose and transformational learning (Mezirow, 2009; Illeris, 2014). Amber stated that when working on developing her work that she did not ‘know what else you need to put in them really’ to improve the grade (Transcript 3, Amber). As discussed earlier in this chapter, Amber was upset in the final tutorial due to a drop in grade and she had no real sense of where she went wrong other than that she should have taken ownership of her ideas for her assignment and not listened to a tutor. She felt the tutor muddled her original plan and then that caused her to not perform as well in the assignment. Her perception of the audience, the tutor who she perceived would mark the work, overrode her decision of what to write to incorporate the tutor’s suggestions. Her desire to please her ‘audience’ had compromised her authorship. There was an uncorrelated relationship between Amber’s understandings of what needed to be in her work, the ‘wrapping it’ where she was analysing theoretical frameworks and her confidence to continue to use this approach was compromised by her need ‘to please the teacher’. For Amber, who was ranked at third lowest for academic confidence, this became her struggle. In the final tutorial, she acknowledged this:
‘I honestly think I listened to- I listened to a tutor, and I should have listened to myself’ (Transcript 4, Amber).
Deep learning was evident in the strategies that Amber applied in tutorial 3; firstly through the understanding of analysis as an aspect of academic writing, and secondly, retrospectively when Amber shows awareness of what she should have done in terms of having authorial control over her work which is linked to her self- efficacy and agency. As Lavelle (1997, p. 476) makes clear that ‘true’ coherence in writing, ‘involves not just making a logical or well organised meaning (cohesion), rather it involves making meaning in relation to oneself and in relation to one’s
172 audience’. Amber was unable to make meaning for herself in the final assessment, her understandings were compromised and she received the lowest grade over the two year programme.
To summarise the discussion in this section of the chapter, it was expected that the findings would show development of metacognitive awareness over the two year study which was not evident across the sample as a whole. Despite the limited changes in metacognitive strategies across the sample, there was surprising variation in the evidence of metacognitive awareness within each individual. This, I argue, was due to the dynamic, intersecting and nested worlds of professional, academic and personal that were multiply influencing each other. Using a complexity theory lens to analyse and discuss the data, where cross sectional analysis has been resisted, has enabled a richer view of the world of the participants. Where transformational learning has been most visible, and arguably does indicate increased metacognitive awareness overall, has been in the grade profiles of the learners where their written assignment grades have been analysed.
The data collection focused on specific aspects of the writing process of planning, translating and reviewing in order to examine closely the different strategies and stages that the learners in the sample used at different points during their academic programme.