The Second Cycle

Considering that twenty-two of the twenty-six learners showed a sequence of more to less participation (eight engaged participants and fourteen less engaged participants), with four non-participants, the second cycle of action research was geared towards enhancing engaged participation that could create conditions for learner criticality. By the second cycle, the technical issues hampering learner participation had been addressed. This meant that learner participation hopefully would be maximised and that the learners would be able to participate in the discussion using the form of technology they were comfortable with, whether it be a cellular device, desktop computer or laptop. This situation would prevent their marginalisation, which, if not addressed, would have hampered the opportunity to democratise science education.

During the cycle it was evident that the learners were more adept at and confident in their use of Facebook for learning. They made full use of the Facebook functionalities to help express and substantiate their claims, including uploading photos, posting

141 bookmarks to websites, posting videos and commenting on peers‟ posts. As Facebook posts are arranged chronologically, the learners could participate at times that suited them. In the first cycle, some learners felt overwhelmed by the many comments on a single wall post and pointed out that it would have taken them very long to read all the comments. In this cycle the problem was negated, as there were more wall posts and fewer comments per wall post, in comparison to the 88 comments, for instance, posted on a single wall in the first cycle. In this way the fragmented discussion observed during the first cycle was also averted, as posts were arranged in a more manageable way.

As has been mentioned before, the first cycle was driven in a linear manner by means of various questions being posed. In this cycle I wanted to limit the role I played to that of a moderator and/or motivator in order to encourage further research on the part of the learners, who would be able to use the technology at their disposal. To this end the learners were merely given the discussion topic and the responsibility was placed on them to guide the discussion. The result was that the discussion was directed along different lines that I could not have foreseen. Learning was no longer linear, and the discussion was pursued along the lines of social, economic and political facets that came into play when the learners addressed the topic of global warming. Although there was enhanced participation in the second cycle, and the technical issues had been addressed, the learners‟ interactions could not be described as overwhelmingly democratic. This relates primarily to the fact that the learners saw the discussion as a debate, rather than an instance of deliberative action. Many learners wanted to impose their viewpoints on others and some were unwilling to listen to their peers. I thought that the learners ought to be taught skills of deliberation during the third cycle, thus allowing them to be open, willing to listen to others, and even to change their viewpoints in a sphere of mutual respect for one another.

As in the first cycle, each Facebook post served as a forum for engaged participation. However, there were still instances when learners made sporadic, generalised statements on posts. These statements were not only sporadic, but also fragmented and, at times, out of context. For example, the screenshots on page 256 („… learners … trying to impose their ideas on each other …‟); and page 257 („… some learners were

142 still making sporadic generalised posts …‟) confirm that some of their statements were quite sporadic and fragmented. To address this issue I encouraged the learners to do further research or referred them to the posts of other learners to try to spark greater interest amongst these learners. Having played a motivational role, I was able to create a culture of learning through Facebook as a form of educational technology. The learners subsequently demonstrated their ability to construct personal learning contexts. In addition, they showed their ability to filter information sources. Website links to reputable news sources were used to validate many learners‟ viewpoints. Learning was not confined to the discussion on Facebook, but also extended by the learners to the Internet. This demonstrated the learners‟ ability to think critically and not just agree with any information source. The way in which comments on posts are displayed also allowed the learners to confer with each other and validate research. The learners thus acted critically. The screenshots on page 262 („Learners demonstrating increasingly more societal awareness and critical thinking‟); and page 265 („The learners continued to show personal construction of their learning contexts, as well as critical thinking‟) confirm the ability of learners to think critically. However, a limitation brought to the fore by online spaces for engaging in discussion was that the learners were unable to gauge the tone of the discussion. Although some learners might have seemed aggressive and in some cases sarcastic, as is evident from the comments, they actually did not act disrespectfully towards one another. My intention was to address this issue in the third cycle, in which the learners would be reminded to be careful in their selection of words to ensure that a culture of respectful democratic action could be fostered.

As the discussion progressed it became evident that allowing the learners to direct the discussion resulted in the topic of global warming being explored more extensively than I had foreseen. The learners looked at the topic of global warming on an economic, social and political level, demonstrating their ability to think critically as confirmed by the screen shot on page 262 („There were instances when the learners thought autonomously by coming up with practical suggestions to reduce carbon emissions‟). Because of their construction of personal learning contexts, my role became less instructional and more motivational. This cycle already managed to highlight the potential of educational technologies to democratise science education. Features such

143 as uploading photos to allow learners to converse with each other better, and the fact that learners could participate at any time, encouraged democratic learning experiences. Through this educational technology, the learners were able to demonstrate critical thinking and engaged participation – that is, they took responsibility for their own learning and simultaneously reduced my role to that of motivator.

In essence, participation during the second cycle appeared more engaged than in the first cycle, primarily because the learners did not have to contend with the technical difficulties they encountered previously. They concentrated more on the discussions, as is evident from the comments they posted on the Facebook group site. Their comments appeared randomly as they endeavoured to discover personal learning environments to indicate their willing participation and ability to respond to a contentious discussion such as global warming. What I observed is that the discussions and debates were at times very critical, showing that they that understood their learning contexts and were influenced by what other learners brought to the discussions. Likewise, an important observation that I made during my analysis of the Facebook „screenshots‟ in the second cycle was that the learners were critical, where criticality involved reasoned and justified thinking. In other words, they expressed their views in a justifiable fashion based on the information they found that corroborated their views on the issue at hand. Consequently, my role also became less instructive and more motivational.