Renewables (KC1) Nuclear (KC2) Village (KC3/KC1)
Framing
Set of facts to be assembled, not requiring much synthesis and so work can be divided between individuals. Gather enough information in appropriate format to cover the topic.
Learn about the energy source and how it works; advocate for its adoption. An extension of existing study group work patterns: a highly collaborative task.
A problem to be solved: practical solutions for hypothetical
villagers. An assessment task with unclear boundaries: what is 'our' problem to solve and what is not.
Disposition Inclination
Edward (and possibly others) wanted closer collaboration, but the dominant inclination was to divide responsibilities. Abilities
Low use of collective epistemic practices; some
misinterpretation of source information. Did not establish effective communication and collaboration processes, online or offline.
Sensitivity to situation Flexibly interpreted task: questioned directions; made own judgement on initial approach. Seen as fairly straight-forward assignment. Interest in professional development.
Inclination
Highly collaborative: some responsibilities divided, but report content assembled and reviewed together.
Abilities
Medium use of collective epistemic practices: highly collaborative writing process; basic evaluation of sources; some misinterpretation of information. Familiarity allowed them to use established collaborative patterns, but also try out new tools (Google Doc with Skype). Sensitivity to situation A chance to learn about a new technology. Ongoing use of collaboration tools. Jessie remained focused on the overall problem. Interest in professional development.
Inclination
Two collaborative and willing to engage with the problem. Two others, by inclination or
circumstances, were followers. In- person collaboration dominated. Abilities
Varied use of collective epistemic practices: high level of in-person collaboration between Adam and Cameron; difficulties in involving and informing Luke and Thomas. Little online collaboration. Adam: adaptive production of artefacts. Limited use of authoritative information sources. Sensitivity to situation
Adam and Cameron imagined the needs of villagers; Adam created contextual artefacts; Recognised the need to collaborate. Interest in professional development.
Marks were heavily weighted towards the group products rather than individual learning or group processes32. There was no direct effect on marks if the Renewables did not set up an effective
communication channel, or if Thomas and Luke were not included in the central knowledge work of the Village group. All groups focused repeatedly on instructions, which named sections of the report and their page length; the Nuclear group pasted that structure into their working document. All groups used the inexact proxy of suggested number of pages per section to estimate effort for the report.
Students worked to reconcile assessment criteria with an authentic response to the problem. The commonly low marks and critical feedback on early project outlines indicates that students did not align with educator intentions. All three case groups spent time considering markers’ and lecturer feedback on their project outlines; for example, Cameron’s (Village) heightened sensitivity to paternalist or colonial bias. Each group’s project outline showed a split between a project outline as a professional engineer and required elements outlining how they as students would complete the assignment. This duality was evident throughout the Village project as Cameron and Adam weighed up detailed design work for answering the problem against limiting the scope of their solution based on assessment instructions.
The Nuclear group treated the task as more advocacy than evaluation, putting the case for use of nuclear fusion by underplaying or removing counter arguments, while acknowledging to themselves that they were unable to answer the main question of providing universal renewable energy. The Renewables group rejected instructions to concentrate on one energy source, based on what they understood the task required. However, they framed the task less as an exploration of an integrated problem than as reporting the pros and cons of energy sources; research was siloed with individuals until the final prac session. The group was not sensitive to the complexity of the problem and did not recognise a need for interdependency in their work; they also did not allocate substantial time to it, often working on MATLAB and other courses’ assessments. In addition, although they recognised that they should organise online communications, the group were either not sensitive to their importance, or lacked collective follow-through or feasible alternatives outside their initial impulse for Facebook.
The familiar concept of housing and community, although in an unfamiliar setting, gave Village students some anchor in their own experience of built environments to respond to the posed
problem. Adam and Cameron, at least, were sensitive to the problem as a complex one that included describing both material and cultural needs of the fictional villagers in concrete, sympathetic ways and placing their designs within competing demands. Luke and Thomas, the other group members, seemed to employ a more bounded framing, responding to requests to complete tasks. Adam and Cameron showed an inclination to engage at length with the problem, using expansive framing (Engle et al., 2012) to find links to overarching concepts, for example, Cameron introduced Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, he and Adam discussed modernisation versus westernisation, and they applied elements of sustainability to their solution, this last an assessment criterion. It was framed as a project with practical implications, especially by Adam as involving practical artefact design.
32 Tutors were asked to observe groups to measure level of contributions, and groups to self-report these, but
5.4.2 Secondary infrastructure
In the secondary level of infrastructure—technical objects and group processes—the patterns of tool use and collaboration differed considerably between groups, summarised in Table 8. Only the Nuclear group consistently used an online tool for knowledge creation. The Renewables group did not have an ongoing online presence, even for basic communications. Of the three engineering groups, two were newly formed for the project; the Nuclear group was accustomed to working together. This familiarity was observable in the rapidity and relative ease, acknowledged by group members in interviews, with which the Nuclear group established their project and chose tools to manage it. All groups had issues locating and integrating appropriate information resources.
Table 8