The session’s non-verbal communication included how group members: divided their attention between reading the task instructions and the discussion; wrote on and referred to the written mind map; gestured, nodded, smiled and used friendly vocal tone and playful elements. Lennox became animated when talking about the racial connotations of video game design, putting the discussion within personal experience,
Lennox: … In desensitisation which is a really big deal, is racism ((Frankie: Yeah)) because I'm, I play a lot of computer games and I don't remember [one] that doesn't contribute to racism.They say 'Look you're an American soldier ((hand gesture emphatically onto paper mind map) and you are fighting these guys ((hand gesture palms parallel and at 90 degrees to table, shifted to the left side)) - they're bad.’ And it will change who they are fighting, in the latest one they are fighting the Mexicans, like that is relevant ((mild sarcastic tone)). The Mexicans are bad. ((other group members paying close attention and smiling))
The other group members seemed to like the idea. The mind map on the shared desks between the group members was updated as ideas were suggested and formed a reference to supplement conversation, a deictic link or shorthand connection to concepts, for example, Frankie pointing to the words ‘video games’ while commenting on a previous statement or when Jordan pointed to ‘desensitisation’ and asked “What does that say?”
Soon after this exchange, the tutor asked the group how they were progressing. Frankie said that they’d like some feedback and outlined the idea of desensitisation of youth through media,
on the issue of racism in games, again growing animated. The tutor asked if they could find statistics or evidence, which Lennox took to be a comment on the issue of violence:
Lennox: That would be the easiest. Each side of the argument are producing hundreds of statistics on crimes related to it
Tutor: On the idea, though, of racial vilification
Lennox: Racial would be part of it but it's less commented on Frankie: Do we go on saying more [
Tutor: [Well, you need academic evidence to support your argument just like he has for his ((points to example project sheet)). That's something you could brainstorm now, how are you going to get that, who is going to be getting that as well as who is going to start that artefact early. And then I'd be looking at a slogan. And then from the slogan, trying to go backwards, how is it going to visually look. They continued talking with the tutor about what was expected in the individual report and about narrowing their topic down from simply “video games.” When the tutor left, they focused on what that narrower topic should be, as well as how it might suit their digital artefact and the format of an advertisement. The tutor, by emphasising the need for academic evidence to back up their ideas, as well as starting the artefact early, may have contributed to the group quickly dropping the idea of racism in games, as “racism is going to have almost no stats or research” (Lennox). That topic was rejected in favour of the more documented violence in games and Lennox drew a line through ‘racism’ on the mind map, the action emphasising this move. Later, the option of exploring concepts before making a decision was again rejected.
The genre of television advertising also influenced the decision on topic. They briefly considered the topic of illegal actions in video games but felt that violence would best match with an advertisement needing to present one perspective. As they made their decision, Lennox asked if they wanted a more balanced topic, answered pragmatically by Frankie with, “I just want to ((gets instructions sheet and reads from it)) 'Devise a problem concerning education'.” Lennox first spoke aloud and then wrote at the top of the mind map, 'Multimedia portfolio targeting the Desensitising nature of violence in video games,’ soon after also speaking and then writing the words, ', and it's effect on our youth.' Frankie called it an “aha moment ((using jazz hands))” and Jordan liked that it was specific. The tutor had earlier urged the class to be specific in their topic.
The frame for the project was to contain work within a manageable scope, using a familiar topic. While the group explored a range of topics, it was an assessment that needed to be navigated.
4.2.3 Secondary infrastructure
This group emphasised assessment guidelines and completing required forms. They started with some conversation around concepts but missed out shared inquiry. The group were exposed to the difficulties of video production and Rory learnt to use Dropbox for collaboration. Online
communication was mostly used to allocate tasks and coordinate work.
Online communication
The group’s online communications were centred on functional management of the project, confining the use of their private Facebook Group to division of tasks and coordination of work. The group used some limited phone calls, text and email to coordinate, which were not collected as data.
The Facebook Group was created in week 8 by Frankie, whose first post after that week’s tutorial allocated readings from the textbook. Information on the page indicated that all group members had seen the post and Jordan had clicked the ‘thumbs up’ or ‘like’ icon—a quick way for group members to indicate approval. One post welcomed Lennox to the group. Another, between the week 9 tutorial and the next, attempted and failed to set up an out-of-class meeting. A post after the week 10 tutorial summarised agreed tasks. Other posts checked meeting times and allocated sections of the presentation.
The group did not centrally record the date of the presentation from the sign-up paper in class, ultimately relying on memory to confirm the date. I posted online two days before the week 12 tutorial, asking to record rehearsals for the presentation. Group members replied that they were meeting to rehearse on the day of the tutorial. However, at 4.30pm the day before the tutorial, Rory wrote, “Are you guys sure? Cuz weren't we going week 12 - 2nd group?? That's what it said on that paper….” Jordan confirmed this at 11.30pm, and Frankie posted at 6.20am on the day of the tutorial presentation, “Oh really? Crap!!!! I thought she gave us week 2? That's why we organized to
rehearse today? Oh no I have no idea what to do,” illustrating consternation with a blushing, wide- eyed emoji. The presentation in class the next week was pulled together by Rory and Jordan in the absence of the other two group members and their allocated sections of the presentation.
One of the intended results of using shared reflective forms (lecturer, personal correspondence) was to have the groups explicitly discuss their approaches and the tools, sources and methods of
collaboration. In their week 10 group worksheet, the group responded to the question on means of communication, eliciting both tools they had used and aspirational tools. Lennox noted “We can probably work Skype in there. ((jokingly)) And who is going to send a letter? ((The conversation moves jovially onto carrier pigeon, owl and smoke signal.))” Despite referring to Skype, an online video/audio communication tool, the group did not consider using that tool to work with Rory, who was unable to attend their evening video recording sessions. This may indicate that they did not make a connection between the tool, its affordances and a need for remote communications. It may also indicate that Rory’s role as editor and the others’ in video production was firmly established and so not revisited.
Tools for writing and producing
The group used Lennox’s phone to record their video advertisement at Lennox’s home. Rory used unspecified software to edit the video.
Students used Dropbox, a cloud-based file storage and sharing service, to share files from the video recording session with the editor, Rory. In turn, Rory shared the final edited video with other group members on the same service, which Rory had heard about but not used before. Frankie suggested Dropbox to Rory in the week 10 tutorial, noting that it was free and said, “I’ll send you a link so you can set it up. It’s easy, yeah.’ Jordan’s individual report noted, “I learnt how to use the Dropbox tool which was highly effective for our digital artefact as it was too large to send via regular email.”
Group interaction and roles
Group interaction was intended to be collaborative, but in practice the group, beyond some initial discussion of the project theme and driving question in week 9, did not further work on concepts together, and focussed on meeting assessment criteria, including completing worksheets.
The group split its responsibilities somewhat, after difficulties in finding a common time to meet. To keep contributions equal, the group decided to divide the work so that three members would record the video in the evening and Rory would edit the recorded material. Although Rory seemingly took part in the week 8 discussion, talk was dominated by other students in subsequent tutorials. Over the course of the project, students talked about previous and current assessment tasks, indicating some of their disposition towards assessment tasks. In this tutorial Lennox mentioned gaining a distinction-level mark (75-85%) for an essay in another course, boasting that it took only “four hours and fifteen minutes, booyah!” Lennox recounted the marker’s comments, that “it was clear you did a lot of revision and review on what you did” although “I didn't even re-read after I wrote it.” Another group member complimented, “Good job!” The ability to complete assessment tasks in short amount of time and often just before the deadline, plus the ability to do it in a way that implies to markers that there has been more work done, is seen as a clever win. This was not a strategy that would help in the group task creating a digital artefact.
Technical objects: task instructions and information sources
The in-class reflective reports were the main technical objects used by the students, using the printed questions to structure their discussion. Although their approach to the subject would have been influenced generally by course curriculum, there was no evidence of use of journal articles or textbook in the planning of the video. While the group did not refer to articles or scholarly sources in their shared work, Rory, Lennox and Frankie included these in individual reflective reports. They used news, internet or scholarly articles on the effect on children of violence in videogames, with no overlaps between individuals’ sources, indicating they did not share research. Both Frankie and Rory produced a separate week-by-week chronicle of group activities in addition to information on the topic, while Jordan’s report integrated information on the topic with information on the way the group managed their work.
The group coordinated their stories for individual reports, in order to show a less compressed production timeline:
Rory: ((chuckling)) (Should we say it) was recorded (the day it was due?) Frankie: You want to include that? Should we?
Jordan: Should we rather say that it happened on Thursday or on Monday? Rory: Yeah on Monday
Frankie: On Monday the (.) when was Monday the twenty Rory: That was week 8
Frankie: The 28th? ((writes)) Jordan: Yep
4.2.4 Primary infrastructure
For this group, there was little shared knowledge creation directed at the identified problem of violence in video games or to the practical steps for planning and producing a video. The group relied on tutor-provided worksheets to structure time together in class in weeks 10 and 11, rather than working directly on ideas and planning the video. The worksheets provided some focus on their collaborative process, however.
The week 10 tutorial centred on the reflection worksheet to be handed in during the tutorial (Figure 14) and had a high proportion of off-task chat. Lennox, who was absent at the start, dominated when present, while Rory took little part in the conversation. All students had a copy, a single sheet printed on one side. Laid out in a grid, the worksheet posed questions, with a small open space for short answers. The questions were aligned with the course’s learning outcomes, printed in the first column. After discussing times to meet up for the video recording, the group talked a little about how to answer the questions on the worksheet, interspersed with more general conversation unrelated to the assessment task. Jordan, Frankie and Rory’s forms at the end of the tutorial made almost exactly the same points, with some identical phrasing. Lennox’s sheet was sparsely
completed and included “owls” in the communication tools response. They were happy that it noted that a newspaper article was a legitimate source, and also agreed that “prior knowledge” could be listed as a source.