Timeline (KC1) VideoGame (KC2) VideoMap (KC2) VideoTech (KC3)
Framing
Division of work; solo responsibility, limited collaboration. Minimise effort and embarrassment. Be creative and original. Present existing information. Experience project-based learning.
Develop the video together; some division of tasks.
Be creative and original. Present existing information, personal ideas. Collaborative exploration of issues, some division of production tasks. Be creative and original. Connect to wider studies. Becoming a teacher. Expanding skills. Collaborative exploration of issues, division of production tasks.
Be creative and original. Practical problem of artefact construction.
Disposition Inclination
Disparate; work early versus procrastination; do extra, do least possible. Abilities
Low use of collective epistemic practices. Basic research; tool selection. Sensitivity to situation A task that can be divided, no need for close
collaboration. Ellis saw possibilities for learning about PBL; Jamie, that individuals had sole responsibility for their allocated work.
Inclination
Manage the task; some exploratory
inclinations. Abilities
Low use of collective epistemic practices: understood need to research, but did not collaborate on this. Few skills in video production; Rory had editing knowledge. Sensitivity to situation Linked to personal experience; assessment project to be navigated. Inclination In agreement; work early; highly engaged and collaborative - share ideas; achieve high marks.
Abilities
Employed collective epistemic practices. Research; explore topic; collaboration.
Sensitivity to situation Research and exchange of information and ideas; the task in a wider setting: personal experience, course and longer-term goals.
Inclination
Engaged and wanting to do well; expansion of ideas versus pragmatics of production.
Abilities
Moderate use of collective epistemic practices. Members with video production experience created individual artefacts to progress work on the shared video.
Sensitivity to situation Chance to explore the issues; short time to complete.
Both Ellis (Timeline) and River (VideoTech) had expected group work at university to contrast favourably with high school. Ellis noted that “everyone cares in uni more” and that there is also the financial issue of having to repeat a course if you fail (interview). River reflected that “it was probably a lot easier because everyone, they chose the course” as compared to students in high school who are forced to do particular subjects, “It was nice to actually have people who wanted to get marked well for it” (interview).
Having previously worked together successfully seems to have given the VideoTech and VideoMap groups confidence in creating shared knowledge. The VideoGames group members had difficulty establishing early research activity. While the Timeline students knew each other socially, they had not previously collaborated, dividing work into individual responsibilities to avoid meeting outside tutorials. They found a digital tool that suited that preference and also answered their need to find something creatively different. The findings suggest that learning designers should plan to help develop mutual confidence between group members.
The framing and disposition of the VideoMap group provided useful preconditions for exercising epistemic agency, in engaging with concepts and projecting into a wider field. The group placed their conceptual discussion in the context of goals such as their future teaching careers and the wider course and program. They also framed the task as part of the process of learning how to act at university, noting that they needed to cultivate an “ambiguous” answer, since “they like things where you don’t have answers now” (Week 11, pre-tutorial meeting).
Compared to the VideoMap group, others made fewer big-picture or connective references with the wider program of study or their personal development. Individually, students such as Ellis did see the assessment in terms of personal goals and development, but this was generally not discussed. When groups made personal connections with their topics of conversation, discussions became more animated. One example was Lennox’s observations of racism in games in the VideoGames group, which was quickly dropped as a potential topic in favour of a more manageable, or safer, one. In their last tutorial, the Timeline group enthusiastically shared online sites they had personally used for learning, drawing conclusions about the changing pattern (anywhere, anytime) of access to educational resources. Potentially, supporting a disposition to find and explore unfamiliar topics, would help groups better tap into the positive epistemic emotion of curiosity (Pekrun, Vogl, Muis, & Sinatra, 2017).
Student dispositions—inclination, sensitivity and abilities (Perkins et al., 1993)—and group dynamics helped frame the task and set conditions for projects. The framing of the task set the tenor of collaboration, and the early stage of each project was key to what followed. Task design and the emphasis on what is important influenced students, but the interaction between individuals guided the course of each project. The variation between groups illustrated some serendipity in the mix of students and their dispositions. Design alone did not guarantee that students framed the task productively, although elements such as the novel format piqued students’ interest in being creative.
4.5.2 Secondary infrastructure
The activity infrastructure was formed in the primary-level infrastructure of knowledge objects and secondary-level infrastructure of tools and processes, guided by students’ framing of the task. This section focuses on the use of tools, resources and technical objects and their role in knowledge creation, addressing research sub-questions 1.2, ‘What secondary infrastructure do students assemble for knowledge-based tasks?’ Every group used Facebook and all worked in person in tutorials, with three groups also utilising extra meeting times. The patterns of collaboration, how they produced their artefact and the use they made of tools, were configured differently in each group (see Table 5 for group comparison). Students decided on tools, but the use they made of them, and their collaboration, were tacitly shaped through activity and interaction, influenced by framing of the task.
Table 5