This activity asks us to consider the paper we read for Activity 1.4 in a more reflective manner:
What counts as evidence in this work?
The subjective opinions of students are used aas evidence. However, the researchers appear to have gone to considerabel lengths to understand the backgrounds of those students so that the opinions are set into a social context that either adds weight to the opinions or vice versa. I guess this partly answers the question about the limitations of the research that I didn’t answer in my previous post. Clearly, the researchers are interpreting the responses of students and their own views and opinions will inevitably colour those interpretations. Unlike the kind of scientific enquiry I am familiar with where things are very black and white, there will always be shades of grey in this type of research. For example, if a student is having ‘a bad day’ or feeling unwell when completing a questionnaire this is likely to colour the reponses they give. Vice versa, a student may feel an obligation to a teacher and so be inclined to give overly positive responses. How does one measure something like ‘candour’?
How do the two explicit research questions relate to the design of the research?
Hmmm… need to ponder this one a bit more.
In what ways is the wider literature used in the paper?
The authors refer to other research papers to support some of the views they put forth. For example, they reference two papers when discussing cognitive maturity. They don’t provide any opposing views – is this because there aren’t any or a choice on the part of the researchers? Overall, there is very little use of wider literature, and very little value is added to this paper where it is used. Would it be fair to accuse the authors of referencing papers only because it is expected rather than because it is necessary in this context? Perhaps that is unfair given that this paper was written in 1989 when there was perhaps very few published papers on the topic.
What views of education and learning underpin the research?
The researchers are pro collaborative learning. It is clear from reading this paper that they think collaborative learning offers considerable benefits over solitary learning. While I am inclined to agree, I am always concerned when courses make collaborative learning compulsory, e.g. H808. People champion online education because it brings freedom from having to be in a classroom at a given time and geographical location, but surely adding compulsory collaborative elements to a course reduces that freedom. While I did learn from the H808 collaborative exercise, I’m not convinced that I couldn’t have learnt the same lessons on my own without the hassle of working my schedule around that of other students.
This collaborative learning approach is, as far as I’m aware, linked to the idea of constructivism – where students make sense of what they are learning by building new concepts into their existing world view etc. I can see the value of collaborative working here as it can encourage students to question their views and explore the views of others.
The other view that comes across strongly is one of the teacher being a facilitator of learning rather than purely a deliverer of learning. This is a topic that has been debated on other courses I’ve studied, particularly H800, and I still hold the view that there has to be some initial delivery of learning before students are capable of more independent work. I studied mathematics and this is particularly true in this subject. Students have to be taught the basics (and by taught I’m thinking of traditional teaching methods whereby the teacher informs the student) in order to then apply and explore the concepts. At higher levels, then yes, facilitating learning and encouraging students to go off and explore aspects that interest them is great, but the foundations must be in place otherwise the student will quickly be out of their depth.
