Students’ Reflection from Weekly Journals

The data analysis did not intend to label each student; rather, the research attempted to describe similarities and differences between students to exemplify the unfolded learning pattern. Given the variations in individual learning experiences embedded in teamwork, individual development, nonetheless, might be affected by group performance but not necessarily follow group learning pattern. Provided that students might be reluctant to reveal their opinions in public, this section draws on data from three students’ weekly journals to look at their learning experiences. Their cases were chosen because they explicitly kept journals of their development in this class.

6.4.1 The Case of Leo

In the first cycle, students tended to absorb knowledge from the teacher rather than generate meanings from their perspective. Leo in group one, a senior undergraduate majoring in English, was silent in class and apt to listen to what the teacher said. He was one of the two students whose midterm and final marks were at the transitional-preliminal stage, higher than others at the absolute-subliminal stage. He recorded his transformation:

Week 2: Today I learned about news editing and skills of reading news. I feel

great to choose this course.

Week 4: This week the teacher introduced comparison of news articles and backgrounds and helped us to detect bias. Although I felt a little confused about the bias, I could discover the differences between different news media. Week 12: After discussing the movie— Good night, and Good luck with the teacher and classmates, I realised that people should report news fairly and justify ideas through evaluation.

Week 14: Today our group performed a talk show about stereotype. No matter who you are, black or white, male or female, we are all equal although

stereotype is still everywhere in today’s society. We shared our opinions with our classmates; it was interesting.

From accepting what was learned, having awareness, to trying to justify and present ideas, Leo progressed gradually in his knowing although he was not keen on talking about his thought in the focus group interviews.

6.4.2 The Case of Wayne

Wayne in group five, a junior undergraduate, by contrast, was willing to report his expectations of this course, what he learned, and what difficulties he encountered in the focus group interviews. He tended to enjoy socialising with his peers and the teacher. He wrote his critical learning experiences in his journal:

Week 2: Originally, I thought this class was teaching us how to edit

newspapers. However, this class is to teach us how to be critical. It will help me to view things in different ways.

Week 7: Today was not our day. We chose an easy topic— the Goddess of the Sea, Matsu which was also hard. It was difficult to choose a controversial topic. We were worried about what news we could study for the midterm and final assessments.

Week 8: The midterm is coming. We are going to enter the last year of university. It is terrible, but we do not have any reasons and time to say that we are not ready. Thinking about my future, I get bored and impatient now. Do you have any good idea, teacher?

His academic marks regressed from 76 (transitional-preliminal stage), the highest in his group in the midterm to 65 (absolute-subliminal stage), the lowest among his group members’ scores in the final, for he involved emotive words such as ‘hate’ and ‘ridiculous’ without justification in the final individual writing. In his journal, he expressed his anxiety about the future and turned to the teacher for help because of stuckness in learning.

6.4.3 The Case of Patti

Working with peers in group six whose academic performance was the highest among the seven groups, Patti, another junior undergraduate majoring in English, scored 81 (independent-liminal stage) in the midterm and 78 (transitional- preliminal stage) in the final. She appeared to be a disciplined and motivated student keeping on developing ideas:

Week 2: Today just a few students attended the class. Though it was a bit embarrassing, I felt comfortable about this! It was helpful for me to concentrate because the teacher taught in English and this class was difficult. The reason might be that I did not preview, so I decided to study the resources before class.

Week 6: We did the presentation and found ours was different from other groups’. We did not focus on the problem, just organised information and answered core questions about US-Korea Free Trade Agreement. After the teacher’s reminder, we discussed our report and each of us pointed out something to modify. I hope the next presentation will be better than this one. Week 16: We are living in the century of globalisation. We cannot assert it is

good or bad. I believe globalisation is a great force for cultural exchange; however, we should decide how many resources we can absorb in case of assimilation. Nowadays, the same life style is not its definition. After discussing with the teacher, I understood more about how our final report will be presented. Because we did the research, we could not just focus on the news we prefer. I hope this time we can better the report and completely suit the requirements.

She reflected on her learning by following the teacher’s guidance for progression though the collaboration with the teacher was involved. As a motivated student inspired by the critical thinking capabilities rubric established by the teacher, she was sensitive to the way of obtaining higher scores. Through the interaction with her group members whose formal assessment scores were at the transitional-

preliminal and independent-liminal stages, she demonstrated the potential for developing critical ideas to be applied in different topics.

These students expressed feelings explicitly in the second week, after presentations, or during weeks to formal assessments. The three cases did not represent any typical students but showed the variances in learning. Leo was not outspoken in his group but conscious of his transformation, whereas Wayne was conversational and came straight out with his opinions in both focus group interviews and his journal. Patti studied the critical thinking capabilities rubric and worked with the teacher and group peers to meet the objectives. Their learning journey might not be easily detached from their group work, from which group one was inclined to stick to the same topic for modification, group five changed a different topic each time, whereas group six was keen on studying related issues under the same topic (Table 4.4 of Chapter 4). Leo in group one tended to slightly progress in thinking; Wayne in group five was continuously faced with new challenges; Patti in group six, by contrast, gradually incorporated different perspectives in the fulfilment of her critical thinking capabilities, involving abandoning assumptions and making meanings. Different students were therefore confronted with learning problems at different levels and transformed in different ways. In addition to working with peers for improvement, students reflected on their own weaknesses in the journals and leaned on the teacher’s facilitation to pass the transitional crossroads.