In the week 4 prac session, the students focused on making sense of the project, meeting the assessment requirements, agreeing on an approach and dividing tasks. Kevin became the coordinator, summarising roles and tasks verbally. When the group followed the logic of how to answer the set question and stated problem, they found themselves at odds with tutor
recommendations. Kevin said, “((looking at the task description)) Please translate this into English, please. This is bullshit.” Kevin saw a disconnect between in-class instructions from tutors for each group to pick just one energy source and what he understood as the problem space of the task as written:
Kevin: That's a brand new thing. This is not that ((indicating the task description)) We're doing this, renewable energy, right? We have to investigate the viability and efficiency of alternative and green power. But it says here, 'Consider all possible sources of renewable energy'. All of a sudden, the tutor's coming along and says each do a particular energy. So that is different to this.
Peter agreed with Kevin’s assessment, saying “They changed the project.” Michael tabled the idea of not following the tutor instructions, that perhaps they could see it more as a “suggestion.” Kevin countered that it was a risk, as the tutors “have to mark it.” Michael noted the risk involved in not expanding their scope:
Michael: Our report's going to be significantly limited if we do only focus on one ((hand gesture to signify 'limit'))
Kevin: Yeah. Depending on which one.
Michael: You're researching only 20% of what you could. Kevin: Good, we're in agreement.
Later in the session, Kevin took their approach to a tutor to confirm that it would be acceptable to look at multiple energy sources. The group expressed project-focused agency, in identifying what they believed was the logical way to approach the problem.
Peter steered the conversation several times to focus on how to manage the work and the fact that “Next week’s the first report.” On this reminder, the group focus shifted to the project outline, dividing the elements between them and sharing a Gantt chart of project tasks for inclusion in it. At about 20 minutes into the discussion, they divided tasks between themselves. They agreed that all members of the group had a responsibility to work on the report and research would be shared, however some specific tasks needed to be allocated to individuals. Peter and Edward volunteered to “do the overall design of the document. We're all contributing, but Michael is doing the outline, you ((Kevin)) are doing the presentation” (Peter). Dave was allocated the Gantt chart, Kevin took note of allocated tasks, and Peter urged that they all “do some research.” On the posited problem, Kevin judged the solution as “Pretty obvious that for Australia, it’s solar and wind. Vast lands for solar panels. Roaring forties for wind ((others nod, agree)).”
The group analysed the wording and instructions for the task, for example, the purpose of the ‘executive summary’ which was, in Kevin’s experience, “for non-Engineers for the people paying for the projects”; what Michael then described as “kind of like marketing,” confirmed by Kevin as “a sales pitch to the common person.” Later in the session, the tutor suggested that each group member take responsibility for a particular section of the report:
Michael: So we have to decide on one source each or do the ethics of everything
Kevin: Or do both? What do you think of a two-stage research approach? We'll all do all aspects of each one, then we get together and swap info. So if you are doing ethics, you put it together. Peter: So, we each do one source and one aspect
Kevin: No, we do all aspects of one source
Just before the end of the prac, they each volunteered for a particular energy source: Peter nominated solar, Michael geothermal, and Dave biogas, although he noted, “it doesn’t seem sustainable.” Michael suggested that was acceptable, as “we just need to research it and find out.” Kevin asked, “What’s left?” and, referencing the whiteboard on which the tutors had listed energy sources, they identified wind and hydroelectric. Edward nominated hydro and Kevin took wind, saying, “To be fair, wind is pretty easy, as is solar. So, we’ve ((Kevin and Peter)) got the sweet end of the deal. So you ((Peter)) and I should as well go out and look for all the others that aren’t listed.” Peter agreed, “The out of the box stuff. Work a bit harder.” The allocation of energy sources
followed the list in the task description, substituting the more usual hydroelectric for ‘water waves.’ Each student was expected to cover the various aspects (ethics, geography, economics) of the energy source they had been allocated. Accordingly, the approach to a solution was siloed, based on separate research on each energy source, rather than collaborating on an overall solution.
5.1.3 Secondary infrastructure
The shared secondary infrastructure of the Renewables group did not incorporate tools for online communication beyond a limited use of a Google Doc, up until the final week before the project report was due. Consequently, emerging ideas and progress on work were not particularly visible to group members. I include a description of the work that Dave and Michael did in week 7 on learning LaTeX, the formatting markup, as an illustration of effort required in instrumentalising a new tool/technology in a group project. This is followed by a section on group roles and collaboration and a section outlining the use of information sources.