Immediate need for re-planning

The plans depicted on Table 6.1, however, were almost immediately set aside, although they became the basis for a greatly extended programme. Students who came to the introductory meeting immediately made some input that led to structural changes.

130

The first modifications were to change the parameters for participation. All students who attended the introductory meeting were very keen to join the research, but four were not actually first-year. Two already had degrees, but in other languages: Ann, in

one of the languages of her home country, and Tama in te reo Māori (Māori language

medium). A third student, Lyn, had previously completed a distance course, but this was her first semester on campus. After consultation with my supervisors, these three

students were welcomed to the research. Through the semester, Ann’s and Tama’s

reflections on their current experiences of university culture and academic writing, and their efforts to contrast them with aspects of their former university experiences in very different cultures, provided clues for interpreting emerging data.

The fourth non-first-year student, however, gave quick, accurate responses to my questions, before other students had a chance to look and find answers for themselves. His confidence seemed somewhat threatening to the apprehension that seemed to be felt by the other students in the room. Discussion with him after the meeting ascertained that he was well outside the parameters for the research, with only two courses left to complete his degree. I encouraged him to network with members of the group, and he accepted my explanation that the group was designed for beginning students and did not join the research. His attendance, however, perhaps suggested a felt need to identify with fellow mature-aged students.

Two major structural changes were implemented in that first meeting in response to input from participants. First, students asked that the study group meet every week, assuring me they had time for such a commitment. As had been indicated in the literature (MacFadgen, 2008; Vanden Driesen et al., 2008), students clearly appreciated meeting similar peers. In that first meeting, as they introduced themselves, they

identified with each other’s stories as each told of struggles to overcome histories of failure and gather courage to enrol at university: “I’m one of those who failed School Cert.. . .. Yet I am willing to take the risk” (Gwen, SG1 AG.1). Some identified with those who told of resentment and suspicion from family networks when they had decided to re-enter education: “My partner isn’t very happy about it” (Tama, SG1 LG.1). They listened to similar peers expressing their fears about coming to university and particularly, fears about the demands of the unknown academic writing they would have to do. Students clearly appreciated that they were not school-leavers and that the complex processes involved in their arrival at university differentiated them somewhat

131

from their younger peers. There was a sense among them that perhaps, in a group of similar peers, they might find support that might not be available from their home networks. They seemed almost desperate to have an opportunity to meet again soon.

In response to their request, study group meetings were held weekly throughout the semester. In addition, to accommodate different timetables and days students came to campus, two iterations of the group were offered each week, one in a lunch break and one meeting at 3 p.m. The original plans became the basis for a broadened structure of meetings for a whole semester. This is shown on Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Eventual content of Cycle One study group meetings

Theme/activity Purpose for participants Relation to conceptual framework

1.1

Introduce the research, ethics.

‘Getting to know you’ activity.

Introduce course

handouts from those who have them.

Begin to establish a social network: engage in purposeful collaborative activities, (MacFadgen, 2008; Vanden Driesen et al., 2008); identify people in the same courses. Identify ways of accessing and negotiating course materials.

Begin to develop a sense of belonging in academia (MacFadgen, 2008).

Begin to acquire ways of ‘being and doing’ within academic culture

(Cullity, 2008; Gee, 1989).

1.2

Share a challenge they are facing with the group. Examine course

handouts.

Analyse essay prompts.

Understand that mature students worldwide share similar challenges (Merrill, 2001; Vanden Driesen et al., 2008).

Begin to build academic self- efficacy through social modelling (Bandura, 2012; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Habel, 2009) as they see similar peers mastering aspects of the new culture.

Identify purpose of first assignments. Begin to understand how their writing assignments fit within the desired outcomes for their courses (Chanock, 2004; Wingate, 2006).

Experience benefits of working collaboratively (Tobin, 2001).

Begin to negotiate the new culture

of academia, to know how to ‘be and do’ within it (Cullity, 2008;

Gee, 1989).

Writing is situated; styles and formatting may be discipline- specific (Carroll, 2002; Chanock, 2004; Wingate, 2006).

Stage 1 of the learning cycle involves identifying and discussing the purpose of texts (Rothery, 1996; Wingate, 2016).

Knowledge is socially constructed (Wingate, 2006);

Aspects of the writing process are social (Harrington et al., 2001).

1.3

Analyse different essay prompts from previous session.

Discuss and plan possible

Identify purpose of first assignments. Begin to understand how their writing assignments fit within the desired outcomes for their

Stage 1 of the learning cycle involves identifying and discussing the purpose of texts (Rothery, 1996; Wingate, 2016).

132 essay structures to

address essay prompts.

courses (Chanock, 2004; Wingate, 2006).

Understand that structuring information is part of the writing process (Harrington et al., 2001).

Writing is situated and discipline- specific (Carroll, 2002; Chanock, 2004; Wingate, 2006).

Collaboration is a valuable part of the writing process (Harrington et al., 2001; Tobin, 2001).

1.4

Reflecting on academic culture.

Skimming and scanning.

Reading strategically and efficiently – skimming and scanning academic literature is part of the writing process (Harrington et al., 2001).

Reading strategically is part of the writing process (Harrington et al., 2001). Reading for information is a specialised practice and takes time to acquire (Kirkness & Neill, 2009).

1.5

Skimming and scanning. Collaboratively construct a paragraph incorporating source material.

Practise skimming and scanning academic literature, brainstorming, mind-mapping, structuring a paragraph (Harrington et al., 2001). Information can be organised into structured paragraphs (as described in the online writing support and in course material). Develop academic self-efficacy through working towards mastery (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Habel, 2009).

Heuristics, organising (Harrington et al., 2001) and synthesising information are part of the writing process (Hendricks & Quinn, 2000).

Writing is a way of constructing knowledge (Chanock, 2001; Harrington et al., 2001). Develop academic self-efficacy through working towards mastery (Bandura, 1993, 2012; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Habel, 2009). 1.6 Collaborative guided analysis of section of literature review of an academic article. “Understanding . . . how

propositions and arguments are counterweighted, questioned, or supported. . .. The rhetorical processes in academic

discourse” (Wingate, 2006, p.

463).

Making the epistemology of university explicit (Hendricks & Quinn, 2000; Wingate, 2006).

Practical work with the

‘conversation’ in their disciplines

Chanock, 2008). Critical thinking and negotiating multiple

viewpoints are components of academic literacy (Carroll, 2002; Harrington et al., 2001).

Stage 2 of the learning cycle is collaborative deconstruction and discussion (Rothery, 1996; Wingate, 2016).

The purpose of much academic literature is to advance knowledge (Wingate, 2006).

1.7

Collaborative revision of marked assignments.

Writing is a social and recursive process (Harrington et al., 2001); Feedback is essential for learning (Navarre Cleary, 2011; Sommers, 2006).

Writing is a social and recursive process (Harrington et al., 2001); it develops through active response to feedback (Sommers, 2006). Stages 3 and 4 of the learning cycle involve collaborative co-

construction of texts (Rothery, 1996; Wingate, 2016). 1.8,

1.9

Discuss how to write a short text about mature students at university for student magazine. Co-

Consideration of audience and how to modify writing to suit (Chanock, 2006; Harrington et al., 2001).

Considering purpose, a different audience altering tone and style, are parts of the writing process (Harrington et al., 2001). Stage 1 of

133

construct a text. the learning cycle involves

identifying and discussing the purpose of texts (Rothery, 1996; Wingate, 2016).

1.10 Chocolate biscuits and coffee to unwind before exams.

Time to reflect on how far they have come.

Identifying with a focused group of peers (Gee, 1989; 2015).

Through Cycle One we worked through these activities at a pace consistent with

students’ acquisition of new skills rather than according to a detailed plan. This flexible pace was important, as it provided an opportunity for participants to address issues with low academic self-efficacy.

6.2.2Participants

In total, twenty students attended some meetings of the study group in Cycle One, but as students strategised about which days they would attend campus, or struggled with juggling their commitments, or withdrew from university, regular attenders settled at ten. Participants who attended three or more meetings and their age groupings are indicated on Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Cycle One participants

All except Ann came from families whose children did not traditionally progress to university. Some had relatives or siblings, and Leigh and Mary had adult children who had degrees, but participants had not lived with those whānau while they studied. Most,

134

therefore, were first in their family in their generation to attend university. Gwen, though, had a little familiarity with academic ways as her husband tutored at the university in applied sciences.