(Figure 27).
They discussed sustainability. Quinn’s remark that “you’ll never run out of atoms” indicated some misconception about fuel requirements for nuclear power. This was corrected by Jessie noting, “but you can run out of uranium” and that nuclear power is not a renewable energy source—however, their later submitted outline described nuclear energy as renewable. Starting from a narrow base of understanding, the group moved to minimise the range of topics to cover. Jessie suggested adding uranium mining to the plan, but Quinn felt that they did not have to include that information. Jessie also suggested including safety or risk assessment but noted that the task description did not include
this as a criterion. They acknowledged the “mega-uncertainties” (Quinn) of nuclear fusion and that it is not at a point where it can be commercially used, leaving them unsure of how to use this in their assignment. The issue of different forms of energy for rural vs urban areas arose with the suggestion that nuclear energy was not the best option for remote areas.
The group focused closely in the week 4 prac on the task description and the required sections for their project outline. They eventually wrote the outline’s executive summary as if part of the final report, asserting the viability of nuclear energy for Australia, “The findings of this report outlines the benefits of both “fission” and “fusion” as nuclear energy options.” In feedback on the outline, they drew criticism for this overly positive assertion, which included a disregard for environmental risks. The group continued in with their single energy source for the final project, but in a more measured way that acknowledged more of the negative issues.
The majority of their outline covered how they planned to execute the project, allocating roles in writing the report and for sections of the presentation. A timeline for production was provided as required, but ultimately not used for guiding their work. The ‘Approach’ section noted their need to “ensure that all tasks are completed according to schedule while keeping all members up to date on their specific roles within the group” and that they should be “keeping organised” and maintain “good communication with the other group members.” The outline noted that research was required to build up their knowledge of the energy source and so “increasing our understanding in the process by using reliable resources,” a frame evident in their subsequent implementation of the project. The boundaries were blurred between ‘university assessment’ and ‘professional engineering report’ in how they approached the project outline.
The group had difficulty in reconciling their chosen energy source with the stated assessment task. Although learning about the expectation that they collaborate with other groups, they kept on their individual path. In choosing an energy source that is not renewable, but can contribute to lowering emissions, and a version of that energy source that is not yet commercially feasible, it was naturally difficult for them to answer the question of how to provide the country with renewable energy. Jessie remained concerned about this and regularly posed related questions, such as whether they needed to estimate the cost of building reactors. Those concerns would not, or perhaps could not, with the lack of information on this experimental energy, be taken up by the other students, especially as Quinn had framed it as an exercise in advocacy. The ultimate frame for the research and writing in the project was more towards understanding the fundamentals of nuclear fusion—a chance to learn—than attempting to put it into a practical plan for Australia’s energy needs, or put their project in a wider professional engineering context, although elements of the latter concerns were evident.
The experience of having worked together was a strong impetus for framing this task also as a collaboration. They brought shared abilities to the task as well, for example, having performed well together in a presentation task in a previous course (Sam, interview).
5.2.3 Secondary infrastructure
Online communication
The group had effective existing informal communications, being in each other’s company outside scheduled classes and members of the same study group’s Facebook Group: “we see each other every day or most days at uni and there's always a message going on asking people where they are and what they're doing and stuff. It was really easy to communicate” (Quinn, interview). The group used Skype with a shared Google Doc in addition to in-person collaboration. The study group’s private Facebook Group23 was available to manage communications and they also conversed about
the project at lunch, but students reported that they did not use these for substantial project work. The group’s Google Doc also acted as a communication channel, especially when group members worked on it simultaneously. They would observe and edit each other’s work, leave messages within the document text and also occasionally use the available chat tool.
Tools for writing and producing
The Nuclear group took a highly collaborative approach to writing, reviewing and editing, starting early and working consistently over the course of the project in a shared Google Doc. However, they still completed much of the work in the last few days before the assignment was due. The decision to use Google Docs came relatively naturally. In a pause in research in the week 8 prac session, Jessie suggested, “Should we be taking notes?” They had started with the lab computer as the focus of their interaction, clicking through some web pages with information on fusion, but then opened their own devices and note-pads. Sam asked “Can I write in Notes?” (an iPad application), but Jessie suggested “Shall we do it in Sheets or Docs? So that we can share it. I’ll make a Doc,” and did so. They helped each other in using the unfamiliar Google Doc software, sharing a screen. Quinn initially edited the doc, but Sam had a better grasp on the tool and formatting, and so took over the
keyboard and mouse. Jessie had not used Google Docs before the project, but was aware of the tool, and had a parent who used it at work. Jessie explained its use, “Because we can all work on it at the same time. I don't know of any other programs that can do the same things as Google Docs does. We don't have to keep sending multiple copies of edits and stuff around through emails and getting mixed up on which edit we're up to and stuff. It's just a real central place to do it” adding, “It's just a tool that—like you know what Microsoft Word does, so you use it” (interview).
When Quinn was away ill, the group used Skype online audio communication to include Quinn in their study session as they worked on the Google Doc. Sam and Jessie lost the Skype audio connection, and it took some time before they resorted to phoning Quinn to rectify this, but not before Quinn had talked for several minutes to empty air. Over the weekend the report was due, they worked intensively and remotely, implementing Skype audio as they worked on the shared Doc. In interviews, the group members reported using Skype in tandem with the Google Doc to briefly discuss what they were doing and to direct other group members to a particular section for their opinion or editing help. The interface for working on a Google doc allowed the students to see where other students were working and the words as they were typed into the document; it was possible in real time to know how the document was being changed. Jessie reported usually finding it hard to work at home with noisy siblings, however found working with the others using Skype aided concentration (interview).
The group were comfortable with editing each other’s sections and took a collaborative approach to writing. They did not tend to use comments on the Google Doc, because “I think if we needed to edit anything we would have just done it” rather than leave a suggestion in a comment (Jessie,
interview). Quinn also noted, “We really didn't care if people edited it, but we could all see what was happening so if someone started editing my stuff, I could see what they were writing and see if I thought it was okay” (interview). The location and means of collaboration were fluid. Sam also worked on the phone, “Yeah, like I'd be in the car and I'd be on the way to dinner or something and I'd be on my phone and then my family's like, ‘What are you doing?’ and I'd be like, ‘I’m doing my assignment’ ((chuckles)) … It was just helpful to be on there when everyone else was on there. Even if I'm just looking at what [Quinn] or someone was typing, it helped me a lot as well” (interview). Being able to see what the others were adding was useful, “Because [Quinn] would be starting something and … be like, ‘I don't know what to write here,’ and then we'd come and look at it, and maybe we'd type something in, that would give [Quinn] an idea” (interview). See the primary infrastructure section below for more on how the group used the Google Doc.
In the week 7 prac, the group tried working with LaTeX as instructed, using the provided worksheet, with Sam working on the lab computer, with the others watching and making suggestions, with limited success, not helped when the computer crashed. Jessie asked, “Why are we doing this on LaTeX?” Sam answered, “Because that’s what we were asked to do.” They were happy with the formatting from the Google Doc, so ignored the task instructions to format using LaTeX.
Quinn and Sam suggested the online tool Prezi for their presentation visuals. Quinn had a current account, so logged in and showed its features quickly on the shared lab computer screen in week 4, stating that it was collaborative and easy to get previous presentations “chucked up” the night before they were due. They liked the idea that it would have “impact.” Sam considered designing with a nuclear theme, and Jamie described it as “so much better” than PowerPoint. Prezi was later off-handedly dismissed by Quinn. When asked what tool they had used for the visuals of the presentation, Sam named “PowerPoint,” but, after being asked how they worked on the file,
clarified this as “Google Powerpoint, Google Slides.” The term PowerPoint (like ‘Kleenex’ or ‘Hoover’ before it) was not meant as a particular brand of software but to designate the general type of product.