VideoMap group

(KC2 - Whole group shared knowledge creation)

The VideoMap group, named for their artefact format of an image map with links to videos, went through a comparatively extended phase of generating ideas. Over the project, the four students— Emma, Sean, Louise and Joshua—produced a rich heap of shared concepts and threaded discussions around their selected topic. They used a private Facebook Group to share articles, notes and ideas, as well as organise meetings and work.

The group took a combination of strategic and deep approaches (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Marton & Säljö, 1976) to the task. While concerned with what would please the tutor and earn good marks, they also showed a common disposition to make wider connections. Their framing of the task differed from the other groups in their emphasis on integrating ideas from lectures, the textbook and other courses. They connected topics with the profession of teaching.

A combination of factors may explain why this group followed through with research and others, with similar intentions, did not. These included: a common interest in doing well and commitment to extra-tutorial meetings; confidence that work would be done, having worked with each other previously; visibility of posts online, contributing to expectations; and the responsiveness of group members in commenting on posts.

4.3.1 Object diagram

The diagram of objects and conceptual discussion for the VideoMap group (Figure 15) shows each member of the group actively contributing both in person and online to create a rich set of shared concepts. The level of conceptual development, sharing of sources and commentary in both these modes was high. The diagram shows a density of connections between elements in tutorials and those contributed online, with ideas continuing through the project via repetition and inclusion in the final artefact. Individuals took up themes from discussion and contributed individual research and comment (indicated by ‘SO’) in the diagram. In turn, shared concepts were taken up in latter discussion (‘EO’) and incorporated into the overall epistemic object. The textbook and a lecture appear as sources. Delaying a decision on the format of their digital artefact, they focussed on conceptual conversation. After finding a likely tool in the week 10 tutorial, the digestive system video shared by Louise online afterwards confirmed them in their choice. The diagram represents a relatively large and engaged volume of work that was maintained throughout the project.

4.3.2 Framing and setup

Of all the case groups, VideoMap’s framing of the task was the most oriented towards exploring concepts and creating shared understanding. From the start, the VideoMap group engaged enthusiastically with concepts, starting in week 8 with a detailed ‘brain storm’ and continuing the discussion in person and online for the length of the project. The digital format helped to frame the task as novel and more engaging than other forms of assessment. As Emma noted, “it’s fun to do. It’s not like ((parody of a dreary voice)) I have to write an essay about cyber-bullying” (pre-tutorial meeting, week 11).

In his interview, Sean described his initial feeling about the assessment task,

It was very open. I had no idea where I was going with it, because I'm used to - with psychology because I'm doing the double degree - having very strict, ‘This is what you do, and this is how you format it.’ And with this one it was sort of like, ‘Here's everything, ever. Have a go.’ So it was unnerving almost, with how much freedom we were given.

Louise also commented on the task’s free interpretation: “it was just very open ended, and that was why it took us a while to get going on it. Because when it's not as specific you just keep postponing it and stuff like that” (interview). Sean noted that “It took us a while to get anywhere past really basic understandings - because there wasn't really any triggers for, ‘You should go this way.’ So it took us quite a while to get off the starting base” (interview). They made progress after a short conversation with the tutor about what the driving questions or concepts were supposed to mean (Sean,

interview). Progress was also made as they read about the subject: “I think we sort of got more of an idea once we'd been researching. It was less of a sort of white-wash idea and we got more specific” (Sean, interview). The comments about taking time and procrastinating was an interesting

illustration of self-expectations, as the group put in a relatively large and steady amount of work. Perhaps not knowing what to do felt like procrastination, although the group seemed to deal with uncertainty well enough by exploring concepts and finding information sources.

They wanted to do well as judged by the tutor. They were keen to be innovative and different: the tutor’s liking for interactive and creative presentations was mentioned several times during the project. While Louise ultimately lamented other students’ lack of response to their live presentation and the amusing videos, she commented, “but whatever as long as [the tutor] liked it” (interview). Sean posted notes three days after the week 8 tutorial11 _{(see below). Sean’s notes were roughly}

arranged in topics, starting with a list of their original ideas and moving onto the more focused area they came to in the discussion, possible driving questions and related ideas. The questions

associated with popular culture versus traditional culture in education included balance between them, integration into curriculum, and students directing choice. Sean listed the discussed

characteristics of traditional and popular culture separately. The approach that was emerging was one of “contrast/connect” and they recognised a need to find out what has been done to use popular culture in classrooms. In the middle of the notes was a mention of an idea for the

presentation, “ - INVOLVING class In it ([tutor] thought this was fairly great So hey MARKS)” and a concern with doing well.

hey guys, putting up our brain storm from the other day (now facebook decided itll let me) …

((15 lines of notes)) …

- cant integrate popular culture into actual curriculum

- sort of like media - in noone actually remembers what happened last week! traditional

- tried and tested

- a lot of pressure on schools to teach properly

- schools where parents pay/ have a voice In their education/ more pressure on teaching to pass tests popular

- fleeting - opinionated

- teacher shouldnt try to keep up - music, magazines etc

- many subcultures!!!

- sort of project based learning/ constructivism contrast/connect

- is it POSSIBLE- information on it having been done before??? - popular culture first THEN integrating THEN

STRUCTURE

from pop culture/traditional alone - more specific (whats already been done) - more more specific (opinions???)

4.3.3 Secondary infrastructure

The secondary infrastructure of this group was highly collaborative and mixed extra meetings in person with note-taking and online sharing of ideas and commentary. This facilitated work on the shared epistemic object over the course of the project. Until the final production phase, when two students worked on media production and the other two on the text of the presentation, the group worked in step. While the group noted the ease of collaboration, this was facilitated by sustained effort and productive knowledge creation and sharing practices.