ࡱ >
Oh +'0 $ 0 @ T `
|
O Paper proposal for Higher Education Close Up 3, Lancaster, UK, 24-26 July 2006 ape Jenni Case s enn enn Normal a C.Linder e s 4 Li Microsoft Word 8.0 H@ F# @ wX@ !@ -
՜. +,D ՜. +, L h p
+ University of Cape Town y Z d
O Paper proposal for Higher Education Close Up 3, Lancaster, UK, 24-26 July 2006 Title @ , 4
_PID_GUID _AdHocReviewCycleINew ways of characterising the student learning experience: an identification of students Discourse models
Jennifer Case* & Delia Marshall**
* Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, South Africa
** Department of Physics, University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Paper to be presented at Higher Education Close Up 3, Lancaster, UK, 24-26 July 2006
Abstract
In this paper we explore new ways of characterising the student learning experience, drawing on perspectives from sociolinguistics. Here, learning is not merely the application of an approach to a cognitive task, but a process of identity formation. In particular, we draw on Gees (2005) concept of Discourse models to identify the implicit theories students use to make sense of their learning experiences. From interviews with third year engineering students, we found two contrasting Discourse models. The first one, termed the face it Discourse model, connects with a Discourse of higher education learning, while the second, termed the no problem Discourse model, seemed to have its roots in a popular Discourse of self-actualization. There was evidence of co-construction of these models during the student learning interviews. This suggests implications for the roles that teachers can play in either maintaining or challenging the Discourse models that are taken on by students.
Introduction
The last few decades have seen the emergence of a field of research which has responded to a key set of research questions around students experiences of learning. This research has been primarily motivated by concerns about the quality of student learning and associated learning outcomes. We will refer to this research endeavour as student learning research. A key concept which has driven this field is that of deep and surface approaches to learning ADDIN EN.CITE Marton1976440Ference MartonRoger Säljö1976On qualitative differences in learning: I - Outcome and processBritish Journal of Educational Psychology464-11elec not at UCT(Marton & Slj, 1976), and these and related constructs are now described in a number of texts for tertiary educators ADDIN EN.CITE Ramsden2003648for example, 1Paul Ramsden2003Learning to teach in higher educationLondonRoutledge2ndWH 378.125RAMS
Matheson 378.1250 941 RAMBiggs19992211John B. Biggs1999Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student doesLondonSociety for Research into Higher Education & Open University PressMonash 378.125B592T(for example, Biggs, 1999; Ramsden, 2003). Such has been the popularity of this theory that Webb ADDIN EN.CITE Webb1997540Graham Webb1997Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of phenomenographyHigher Education332195-212elec on file(1997) has described it as the centrepiece of the modern educational development canon. However, there are a growing number of scholars who have raised questions around this particular characterisation of the student experience. For example, Haggis ADDIN EN.CITE Haggis20026400Tamsin Haggis2002Trying to be motivated: perspectives on learning from younger students accessing higher educationTeaching in Higher Education73323-336elec on file(2002) has critiqued the notion of rational progressive trajectories that it portrays. Others have agreed that it is somewhat limited in terms of how it suggests that we should think about student experience, and have also judged it to be limiting in terms of the possibilities it offers for facilitating educational change ADDIN EN.CITE Haggis2003432for example, 0Tamsin Haggis2003Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into 'approaches to learning' research in higher educationBritish Educational Research Journal29189-104copy in SL file
elec on fileC:\Documents and Settings\jcase\My Documents\A Archive Ed Research\A Endnote\Haggis2003BERJ.pdfCasein press8570Jennifer Margaret Casein pressAlienation & engagement: Exploring students' experiences of studying engineeringTeaching in Higher Education121Malcolm20012910Janice MalcolmMiriam Zukas2001Bridging pedagogic gaps: conceptual discontinuities in higher educationTeaching in Higher Education6133-42elec on file
copy in filing cab under AD(for example, Case, in press; Haggis, 2003; Malcolm & Zukas, 2001).
In this paper we develop an alternative characterisation of the student learning experience by using the construct of Discourse models emerging from the work of James Gee. We present the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of this study, as well as the empirical findings and their implications for practice.
Theoretical framework
In the context of research on student writing, Lea and Street ADDIN EN.CITE Lea19989060Mary R. LeaBrian V. Street1998Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approachStudies in Higher Education232157-172(1998) identify three different approaches, moving with increasing sophistication and breadth from a focus on study skills, through academic socialisation, to academic literacies. We suggest that these are analogous to developments that are evident in the literature of student learning research, except that it is only the first two stages that have to been substantially explored to date. The study skills approach is exemplified by cognitive psychology research which attempted to characterise learning in a context-free manner. The academic socialisation model is represented by the research field mentioned in the introduction. This attempted to characterise more naturalistically the student experience of learning, and identified deep and surface approaches to learning. The shift between these first two perspectives is explained in some detail in Entwistle ADDIN EN.CITE Entwistle19974310Noel J. Entwistle1997Introduction: Phenomenography in higher educationHigher Education Research and Development162127-134elec not at UCT(1997), and indeed the move towards a focus on students lived experience was a substantial improvement on the narrowness of cognitive laboratory-based experimental research. However, as mentioned above, there has now been some suggestion in the literature that student learning research is too narrow in its orientation. It is possible then that a focus on academic literacies might provide this broader perspective, and in fact Haggis ADDIN EN.CITE Haggis20034320Tamsin Haggis2003Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into 'approaches to learning' research in higher educationBritish Educational Research Journal29189-104copy in SL file
elec on fileC:\Documents and Settings\jcase\My Documents\A Archive Ed Research\A Endnote\Haggis2003BERJ.pdf(2003) suggests exactly such a move. In this paper we start to explore what such student learning research might look like.
The academic literacies perspective has emerged from the area of the New Literacy Studies, in which literacies are seen as social practices, and where students need to negotiate often conflicting literacy practices ADDIN EN.CITE Lea19989060Mary R. LeaBrian V. Street1998Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approachStudies in Higher Education232157-172(Lea & Street, 1998). In this framework, learning is characterised as the acquisition of a specialist discourse ADDIN EN.CITE Lemke20013500J.L. Lemke2001Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science educationJournal of Research in Science Teaching383296-316elec on file
on shelf(Lemke, 2001), and as involving the development of new identities. Importantly, the discourses that university learning might require students to acquire will often be in conflict with more experiential discourses that students have acquired in the community.
It has struck us that the focus on identities, which is at the heart of Gees work on discourse, could profitably be applied to the same research questions which have driven the student learning research endeavour, with potentially very different outcomes. In this paper we therefore draw almost exclusively on the theory exemplified in Gees recent book ADDIN EN.CITE Gee20058611James Paul Gee2005An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methodLondonRoutledge2nd0-415-21186-7(Gee, 2005), in order to explore the utility of this approach properly. We are well aware of the broad range of theoretical options for conducting discourse analysis ADDIN EN.CITE Fairclough1992903for example, 1N. Fairclough1992Discourse and social changeCambridgePolity PressKress19859041G. Kress1985Linguistic processes in sociocultural practiceOxfordOxford University Press(for example, Fairclough, 1992; Kress, 1985) but for the sake of simplicity in this paper we have chosen to work predominantly with Gees framework, mainly because of his strong focus on identities, and the obvious applicability of this work to the student learning research questions.
Gee (2005) argues that acquiring a new discourse has relatively little to do with acquiring new grammar or vocabulary, but more to do with a whole way of interacting in the world in order to pull off a particular identity. This involves active-interacting-thinking-valuing-talking-(sometimes reading-writing) (p. 26) in an appropriate way in order to enact a particular identity. To emphasize this distinction between language acquisition and all these other attributes that are part of enacting a particular identity, he uses the term discourse, with a small d, to signify language-in-use, and the term Discourse, with a big D, to signify the combination of language plus the actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing, etc.
In order to characterize students learning experiences we have specifically drawn on Gees concept of Discourse models, which he takes to be the theories (storylines, images, explanatory frameworks) that people hold, often unconsciously, and use to make sense of the world and their experiences in it (p.61). These theories are connected to specific Discourses, in Gees terms specific socially and culturally distinctive identities people can take on in society. We used this notion of Discourse models to identify the implicit theories that students use to make sense of their learning experiences, and have attempted to link these to the broader Discourses that are in operation in society.
Data collection and analysis
The research reported in this paper forms part of a larger study focusing on student learning in a third year chemical engineering course in a traditional and research-focused South African university. The course was a semester-long compulsory core course with a strong theoretical orientation. The first author took part in the course as a participant observer, and as part of the study conducted individual semi-structured interviews with each of the 36 students (out of a class of 45) who had volunteered to participate in the study. This interview, which formed the primary data for the present analysis, was conducted during the second half of the semester. The focus was on the students experience of the course: how they utilised the different learning activities in the course, how they felt about their performance on the different assessment events, and what they felt had helped or hindered their learning. The data therefore primarily reflect students accounts of their learning experiences.
Interviews have been extensively used in student learning research, often with little recognition of the social dynamics of the interview situation. In this case, the interviewer, being a fellow student on the course, was uniquely placed to be able to talk with students about the experience of the course. However, at the same time, she was known as a lecturer in the junior years of the programme, although she had not directly taught the students in this third year class. Slj ADDIN EN.CITE Säljö19971210Roger Säljö1997Talk as data and practice - a critical look at phenomenographic inquiry and the appeal to experienceHigher Education Research and Development1622173-190elec not at UCT(1997) cautions against taking interview data at face value without an appreciation of the identities that are being constructed in this social exchange. In this case, as in any interview, there were particular roles and identities that were available to the participants. Kvale ADDIN EN.CITE Kvale19962511Steinar Kvale1996InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewingThousand Oaks, CASagemonash 301.01K97.I(1996) also stresses the co-constructedness of interview data. In formulating the objectives for this study we were therefore careful to consider exactly what it is that the analysis could deliver. Rather than any sort of objective characterisation of the student learning experience, we aimed to locate the identities that students constructed in the context of the student learning interview.
In producing transcriptions of the interview we opted for a relatively broad transcription style ADDIN EN.CITE Gee20058611James Paul Gee2005An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methodLondonRoutledge2nd0-415-21186-7(Gee, 2005), with limited coverage of detailed speech features such as pauses or tone. In analysing the transcripts we followed Gees approach of breaking the texts up into lines and stanzas in order to make the logic inherent in a text more apparent. The solid blocks of transcribed texts were taken apart so that each line in a transcript consists of a unit of speech that usually contains only one main piece of salient information ADDIN EN.CITE Gee2005861, p. 1251James Paul Gee2005An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methodLondonRoutledge2nd0-415-21186-7(Gee, 2005, p. 125). These lines have then been grouped into sets of lines, which Gee refers to as stanzas, each stanza being a set of lines devoted to a single topic, event, image, perspective or theme ADDIN EN.CITE Gee2005861, p. 1271James Paul Gee2005An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methodLondonRoutledge2nd0-415-21186-7(Gee, 2005, p. 127).
An initial content analysis across all the data resulted in the identification of a number of themes. Students identified this as a particularly good course, and spoke highly of the lecturer and the way he interacted with students and ran the classes. Most students talked about the importance of working together with other students. Many had experienced failure in the past but were confident that they were coping well in this course. They noted some challenges, particularly with regard to a high workload across all courses, but felt that they had things under control. This seemed, however, at odds with the final course results in which a quarter of the class failed, and less than a third achieved a final mark of more than 60%. It was therefore hoped that the research might shed some light on this apparent disjuncture between students stated experience of the course and their course results.
We then used these themes to begin to form what Gee terms hypotheses about the Discourse models in operation. We tentatively identified two distinct Discourse models and then went back to the transcripts to check whether these Discourse models were indeed discernable across all the data. In the process, the characterization of the models was substantially refined, until we felt we had achieved both the coverage and convergence which Gee suggests is important in establishing research findings.
In this process, we were able to discern certain macrostructural features that seemed to be characteristic of the two Discourse models. We also conducted a fine-grained analysis of the data, looking at how the two Discourse models were represented linguistically, bearing in mind that the details of linguistic structure are a crucial element in establishing the validity of a discourse analysis. These two levels of analysis will now be presented in turn.
Research findings
We identified two Discourse models which jointly characterize two fundamentally different ways in which the student learning experience was represented. Both were framed in terms of notions of being a successful student. In the first Discourse model, termed the no problem Discourse model, there is a general belief in development and progress, according to which a successful student is seen to be getting better despite experiences of failure. In the second Discourse model, termed the face it Discourse model, there is the belief that out of experiences of struggle, confusion and uncertainty, success in learning can arise. The key distinction between these two Discourse models hinges on how students talk about crises. In the no problem Discourse model, a crisis in the course is described, but then through a process of justification, the seriousness of the crisis is almost immediately diminished. On the other hand, in the face it Discourse model, failures or setbacks are not explained away and justified but are portrayed as events leading to what we have termed 'learning moments'.
Macrostructural analysis
The interviews involved students telling their stories and constructing particular narratives about being learners, and so it is natural that there are clear narrative features apparent in the transcripts. As Gee notes ADDIN EN.CITE Labov1972902cf. 1W. Labov1972Language in the Inner CityPhiladelphiaUniversity of Pennsylvania PressLabov19729021W. Labov1972Language in the Inner CityPhiladelphiaUniversity of Pennsylvania Press(cf. Labov, 1972), there are some story-telling devices that are common to all stories regardless of culture and age group (and, we would add, historical time-period). This narrative patterning, too, is echoed in some classical musical forms. We were therefore able to identity the usual stages of setting, crisis, resolution, and coda, but these took on particular characterizations in the context of the Discourse models.
The macrostructural features particular to each Discourse model are summarised in Figure 1 given below. These were not necessarily present in all extracts, nor were they always in the same chronological order in the extracts, but they were identified across a large number of transcripts and with sufficient adherence to this general form.
no problem face it
Discourse model Discourse model
Upbeat setting Tempered setting
CRISIS
Justification Learning moment
Upbeat resolution Tempered resolution
Figure 1. Discourse models
In the no problem Discourse model, students initial accounts of their studying were often optimistic and positive (upbeat setting), but then followed by a qualifying statement in which challenges and failures would be raised (crisis). However, these failures and challenges were then defensively justified and reasons given to deny their seriousness (justification), and this would then be argued as reason for feeling upbeat and the account would end on a positive note (upbeat resolution).
In the face it Discourse model, by contrast, students do not frame their accounts with a positive spin. They tend to start right away with descriptions of struggle (crisis), and these failures or setbacks are not explained away and justified but rather portrayed as events which can help in facing up to problems in how they are approaching their studying (a learning moment). The extract often ends with some sort of description of a way forward to improve their learning, but without the optimism of the first Discourse model (tempered resolution).
In the texts that follow, these macrostructural features of the two Discourse models can be clearly discerned. In Text 1, the first stanza opens with an upbeat setting (I am comfortable). Then the crisis (the exam) is raised, but right away the seriousness is diminished by a justification (everyone goes through that). The stanza then ends with an upbeat resolution (Im not lost, I can say Im there). The interviewer then interrogates this upbeat resolution, and the student in stanza 2 then refers to a past crisis to underpin her justification for feeling upbeat.
TEXT 1:
Example of no problem Discourse model
Student
1
2
3
4
5
6STANZA 1
Okay I am comfortable,
okay like the whole exam bit of things is what worries me a lot
but I mean everybody goes through that
but so far Im not panicking
and Im not lost,
ja I can say Im hanging Im there
UPBEAT
CRISIS
JUSTIFICATION
UPBEAT
Interviewer7Youre not just lying in there? Student8Ja, Im not like stuck in the mud or somethingUPBEATInterviewer9And youve experienced being totally stuck in a course before?Student10Yes [laughs]Interviewer11Okay
Student
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
STANZA 2
Ja Im comparing to like other,
like I know Transport 1 I was really,
I dont know what I was doing,
Im surprised I even passed the course
but you know I just didnt know where I was going wrong
like Id do the tut,
Id do like past questions
but come to the test everything would just,
I would apply the knowledge I thought was the right,
but in the end
okay fine I guess I made it
but then
I struggled like throughout the course
STANZA 3
but okay
Im not experiencing that as yet,
so,
I can say for now
Im still okay.
CRISIS (PAST)
JUSTIFICATION
UPBEAT
In Text 2, the tempered setting (Its difficult) contrasts with the upbeat I am comfortable in Text 1. Instead of diminishing the seriousness of experiencing the course as being difficult (the crisis), the student sets about unpacking why it is difficult and how best to go about learning in the course (learning moment). Unlike in Text 1, there is no upbeat resolution, but rather a tempered resolution (its possible to pass it. No, I think its also possible to fail it).
TEXT 2:
Example of face it Discourse model
Student
1STANZA 1
At the beginning, TEMPERED2I never thought its that difficult, 3anyway I dont 4its difficult,
STANZA 25its just that its a lot, LEARNING 6and you need to think 7you know. 8It requires you to think 9cause some stuff 10you can sort of overlook them, 11but when you really think 12and then you get to understand what it is all about 13and then ja.
14
STANZA 3
You know15just like the project16you need to think a lot, 17you need to know your variables, 18you need to know, okay if I change this, 19this will happen 20and to make my thing for my design to be fine, 21maybe I need to change this and that 22and you know some stuff we overlook them and ja.
23
STANZA 4
But all in all,
UPBEAT24I dont think its very difficult. 25I think its fine. 26And I think its possible to pass it. TEMPERED27No, I think its also possible to fail it, 28ja, judging from the test its also possible to fail it.
The distinctive narrative feature in the second Discourse model, which we have called the learning moment, needs to be clarified: it is metacognitive ADDIN EN.CITE Gunstone19981427Richard F. Gunstone Ian J. Mitchell1998Metacognition and conceptual changeJoel J. MintzesJames H. WanderseeJoseph D. NovakTeaching Science for Understanding: A Human Constructivist ViewSan Diego, CAAcademic Press134-163Monash Matheson 507.1 M667T(Gunstone & Mitchell, 1998) in nature rather than about conceptual development. In other words, students are not describing understanding particular concepts better, but rather reflecting on new ways of thinking about how they go about studying. This echoes the overall orientation of this paper as outlined earlier. So, in Text 2, the student talks about her realization of how the course requires you to think (lines 11-19), which she explains in terms of developing an understanding that allows you not to overlook important aspects. This reflection on learning characteristic of the second Discourse model is in contrast to the lack of reflection evident in the no problem Discourse model, in which learning failures are explained away through simplistic justifications rather than really reflected on.
Assessment is perceived by students quite differently in these two Discourse models. In the no problem Discourse model, assessment results are experienced as random, for example in Text 1 (I dont know what I was doing, Im surprised I even passed the course). Tests are often perceived as disconnected from learning in the course itself, with test results seldom considered as an accurate reflection on learning progress:
I think I knew better than what the test said I did
The test, I got a 50 in fact 49but on the overall test itself I understood most of the concepts.
In this Discourse model, students express little agency in the context of the various crises induced by assessment in the course. There is a sense of being buffeted by external and random events. Poor results are explained away in ways that indicate a lack of appreciation of what it takes to learn in the course, for example with a focus on method, as if this was a simple thing somehow divorced from conceptual understanding:
I forgot the methodnot that I dont understand
It was kind of silly mistakes, using the wrong method or things like that.
By contrast, in the face it Discourse model, assessment is considered to be a central part of the learning process, and the students reflect actively on their results in order to modify how they approach their studying. One student, for example, described how her disappointing test results (despite being one of the top in the class) caused her to reappraise her way of solving problems in tutorials and tests, and talks of the need to develop confidence to try out her own ideas. It is quite notable in this extract that unlike the examples above, she is does not dismiss method as a minor concern.
I never sit down with a tut and go
oh I know how to do this question
and do the whole question straight off.
I always get to a point and I go,
Tutor, can I do it like this?
Yes,
no.
And I suppose the thing in the test is that,
I get to that point and Im like,
I dont know if I can do this.
The co-constructed nature of the interview data was evident in many of the interview transcripts, with particular identities being constructed in the interviewer-student interactions. In Text 1, for example, the interviewer introduces this discussion by an observation that things seem to be going well for the student, and this is then taken up by the student to construct an identity of a confident and sorted student, as represented by the no problem Discourse model. However, later in the interview, the interviewer then begins to interrogate the complacency inherent in this Discourse model (lines 7 and 9) and probes the students justification of his upbeat outlook.
Detailed linguistic analysis
In this section, we provide a detailed linguistic analysis of Text 1 and 2 above, as a way of lending validity to the Discourse models we have characterised, and the macrostructural analysis above. We have tried to identify grammatical and linguistic devices that support the communicative functions which we have attributed to the texts.
Text 1 begins with an upbeat setting in line 1. The repetition of okay in line 2 signals a transition, and this follows with the crisis that is introduced in this line (the whole exam bit of things is what worries me a lot). The all-encompassing words whole and a lot give this line a heaviness at each end. However, the metaphor (bit of things) in the middle signals some attempt to trivialize the nature of the crisis. The use of but at the start of line 3 signals the justification which is introduced at this point. A key device that is used is the move from the centralising me in line 2 to the universalising everybody in line 3, by means of which the student establishes solidarity with the rest of the class, and in doing so diminishes the seriousness of the crisis. In the conclusion of this first stanza, the student states Im hanging Im there but by prefacing this with I can say there is a lowering of modality which suggests a hint of doubt. The interviewer picks up on this and in line 7 questions this statement, interrogating the meaning of there and introduces another possible, although oddly worded, interpretation (just lying in there).
In line 8 the student responds with another emphatic not, introducing another spatial metaphor (stuck in the mud). The interviewer picks up on this statement in line 9 and asks whether she has experienced this before. The laughter which follows the students recognition of this experience is possibly an attempt to make light of it. She then goes on to discuss this experience in some detail.
There is extensive use of the first person pronoun I throughout this stanza, putting the personal experience at centre stage. In lines 17 and 18 the students efforts in the course are detailed, but in line 19 there is a significant shift when the test is mentioned. Instead of the agency implicit in the prior use of I, an external random force comes in signalled by the use of everything would just. The resolution is very weak: okay fine I guess I made it, with a lowered modality suggesting low levels of confidence arising from this experience. This is also signalled by the return of the crisis announced by the use of but at the start of line 23. Line 28 recapitulates the theme at the end of the first stanza in line 6. This clarifies that this second stanza was a means of further elaborating and explaining the statements in the first stanza, especially after the interviewers interrogation. The use of for now in line 28 and still in line 29 suggests that the situation is provisional. Although the resolution is upbeat there are hints of the worries that lie just below the surface.
In Text 2, the first stanza introduces the tempered setting. The naming of the external it (for the course) in lines 4 and 5 and later through this piece puts the course as an outside force which impacts on the student. In lines 6 and 7 the use of you creates a universalisation of this experience. In these respects there are similarities to the other Discourse model. However, although also experienced as universal and externally imposed, this student responds very differently to the course environment. There is a powerful repetition of the key theme to think in lines 6, 8 and 11, with added emphasis through the use of really think in the latter line. In lines 9 and 10 we have the first explanation of why you need to think, signalled by the use of (be)cause at the start of these lines. In line 15 further elaboration is provided by reference to the (design) project. The repetition of you need to in lines 16, 17 and 18 further underscores the emphatic and confident tone. Line 18 signals a shift again to the first person I, emphasizing personal agency in controlling the outcomes of the project, termed my design in line 19. Lines 21 and 22 recapitulate ideas introduced earlier in lines 18, and 9-10 respectively. Line 23 signals that the discussion will now be brought to a close and some kind of summary statement given. Once again one is surprised by an apparent paradox, a delightful juxtaposition. Line 24 repeats the opening tempered statement, and this is confirmed with a restatement in the positive in line 25. In line 27 there is again the shift to the alternative perspective introduced in line 4, justified by reference to the test. What is striking is the lowered modality throughout this concluding piece, indicated by the use of I think in every line in this stanza. It is a notable contrast to the emphatic confident sense of control communicated earlier, and it suggests a disposition with an openness to learning. It is interesting to contrast the uses of the word think in stanza 2, where it signals a cognitive activity, and in stanza 4, where it produces lowered modality.
A striking difference between the two texts is the presence in Text 2 of a more technical lexicon and specificity of detail: whereas in Text 1 the student talks in vague generalities, in Text 2 the student draws on quite specific examples in the course to talk about her learning experiences. She is able to discuss in detail the modelling activity that is at the heart of the design project: changing variables and observing the outcome. This suggests that she has more successfully acquired the discourse of higher education and particular disciplinary discourse of engineering. A further instance of the discourse of higher education can be seen in her reference to using evidence (judging from the test) in the last line of the text.
Discussion
We postulate that the no problem Discourse model, with its optimistic focus on development and progress, is possibly exacerbated by the challenging engineering course context, in that the more students struggle, the more they need to bolster their sense of self through these beliefs. However, we also suggest that this Discourse model might ultimately be counter-productive for facilitating real learning, and that the second Discourse model, with its focus on learning through confusion and uncertainty, might in fact be more useful to students. Of course, students inhabit different identities to varying degrees, and in several extracts there was evidence of both Discourse models at play. While our intention here was not to look for correlations between Discourse models and student success, our analysis of discourse extracts from some of the more successful students showed that they seemed more likely at times to move away from the dominant no problem Discourse model to inhabit the less comfortable face it Discourse model.
Although the course context may in part give rise to the no problem Discourse model, we would suggest that each Discourse model may be considered as a manifestation of a broader Discourse ADDIN EN.CITE Gee20058611James Paul Gee2005An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methodLondonRoutledge2nd0-415-21186-7(Gee, 2005) in the socio-cultural domain. We would postulate that the no problem Discourse model has links to a Discourse of self-actualization which is common in the popular arena, involving messages such as reach for your dreams, believe you can do it and dont give up. This appears to emanate from a popular psychology discourse focusing on individual success. It also resonates with the notion of career aspirations promoted in capitalist society, characterized by Gee ADDIN EN.CITE Gee20058611James Paul Gee2005An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methodLondonRoutledge2nd0-415-21186-7(2005) as a common American Discourse model of success or getting ahead. As Gee ADDIN EN.CITE Gee20058611James Paul Gee2005An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methodLondonRoutledge2nd0-415-21186-7(2005) points out however, this model is frequently in conflict with the lived experience of many people, especially those from working class backgrounds. In the present study we suggest that the no problem Discourse model is often counter productive for students who are trying to get ahead in a challenging tertiary course. Fairclough ADDIN EN.CITE Fairclough19929031N. Fairclough1992Discourse and social changeCambridgePolity Press(1992) shows how a shift in discourse which on the face seems more democratic and egalitarian, can often mask subtle new ways in which power is entrenched. As example he describes the movement of a counseling discourse into the public domain, which links with the self-actualization Discourse described here. This also has interesting parallels with Webbs ADDIN EN.CITE Webb19961641Graham Webb1996Understanding staff developmentLondonSociety for Research into Higher Education & Open University PressMatheson 378.125 W 366U(1996) work on staff development, in which he argues that the modernist focus on development has problematic impacts on the lives of academics.
The face it Discourse model encompasses much less of the confidence and certainty projected in the no problem Discourse model. There is a much greater openness to uncertainty, doubt and intellectual humility. To take an example from the data above, students enacting the first Discourse model use the term the method in a way that suggests certainty and only one right way in contrast to the more tentative approach of Susan, who talks about developing her confidence to try out her own ideas. We would postulate that the face it Discourse model is in fact congruent with a broader Discourse on learning in higher education. This Discourse involves a belief that students will engage in critical thinking, will explore and take on the specialist Discourses in their chosen discipline, and will reflect on their experiences. Many scholars, including Gee (2005), have pointed out how these orientations are more common in middle class homes, and that students from these backgrounds are at a considerable advantage when they come to higher education. The plurality, uncertainty and temporality in the face it Discourse model also suggests an interesting link to the Perrys ADDIN EN.CITE Perry1970681William G. Perry1970Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years.New YorkHolt, Rinehart & Winston(1970) model of intellectual development which claims that tertiary students proceed through a range of seven stages starting at a basic duality (Things are right or wrong and there is only one right answer) through to a position which acknowledges the inherent relativism in the world but is able to find a space for personal commitment (There are lots of ways of seeing this problem and for now I will pick a particular perspective to work with). Perrys original study was conducted with liberal arts students, and Wankat and Oreovicz ADDIN EN.CITE Wankat19931881Phillip C. WankatFrank S. Oreovicz1993Teaching engineeringNew YorkMcGraw-Hill, Inc.Monash 620.0071173WAN(1993) refer to studies which show that many engineering students typically dont proceed much beyond Perrys second stage. This raises the whole question of to what extent the course environment actively promotes the face it Discourse model or whether it works to keep less successful students hanging on to the no problem Discourse model.
At the heart of the educational context is the lecturer-student relationship, and the interviews provide an interesting window into reconsidering this relationship. As Gee and others (Kvale, 1996; Saljo, 1997) remind us, interviews are a form of social exchange in which identities are being co-constructed through the interviewer-interviewee exchange. Gee talks about the recognition work that happens between interviewer and interviewee in interview situations. Here, we could suggest, a student employs the no problem Discourse model to be recognised as a future professional, drawing on characteristic ways of thinking, acting, feeling etc. embodied in the self-actualization Discourse identified earlier. These include being confident, being in control and making progress. We would speculate that the co-construction of the no problem Discourse model often reflected in our interview transcripts may reproduce the power relations inherent in the regular student-lecturer relationship. Here the teacher, in relationship with the student, may tend to co-construct this Discourse model, with reassurances that everything will be fine in the end and just hang in there. We would assert that this has important implications for teaching. Teaching needs to make it clear that crisis is a necessary part of learning, and the challenge for teachers is then to assist students to use crisis moments productively to arrive at learning moments. This poses a real challenge to lecturers, whose collusion with the no problem Discourse model might come from a very real concern for students and a desire to keep them motivated. We need to explore ways of interacting with students in which we can simultaneously encourage them and also push them to grapple with areas of uncertainty and difficulty.
Conclusion
The approach to characterising student learning that is presented in this paper signals something of a departure from the classic constructs in the student learning literature. It is possible to see some similarities between the no problem Discourse model and the surface approach to learning, with their inability to get to grips with the course requirements. Likewise it is possible to discern some links between the face it Discourse model and a deep approach, in that they both involve grappling with difficult concepts. However, the Discourse models offer a broader theoretical scope and have the potential to produce some very powerful explanations. In particular, it has always been a puzzle as to why approaches to learning can often be quite difficult to shift even in course contexts which explicitly require a particular approach. The new student learning theory tentatively emerging from the analysis in this paper suggests that Discourse models, being linked to broader Discourses which students have acquired in their community and home backgrounds, are not easily abandoned. Another key aspect of this new theoretical approach is the focus on student identity rather than on cognitive processes, which responds to critiques which have noted the narrowness of the interpretations offered by the student learning literature. Further research in this area is needed in order to develop these characterisations. In summary then, we note that it might be difficult to let go of neat constructs and straightforward research methodologies which are popular in approaches to learning research, but we would argue that this is more than compensated for by the more nuanced and productive characterisations of the student learning experience that can be obtained.
Acknowledgements
We are most grateful for critique and inspiration from the Discourse Analysis Group in the Centre for Research in Engineering Education (CREE), and also for thoughtful comments from Lucia Thesen from the Centre for Higher Education Development at UCT. All errors remain, however, our sole responsibility. Finally, we would like to acknowledge financial assistance from the National Research Foundation (NRF).
References
ADDIN EN.REFLIST Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. London: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Case, J. M. (in press). Alienation & engagement: Exploring students' experiences of studying engineering. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1).
Entwistle, N. J. (1997). Introduction: Phenomenography in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2), 127-134.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Gunstone, R. F., & Mitchell, I. J. (1998). Metacognition and conceptual change. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human Constructivist View (pp. 134-163). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Haggis, T. (2002). Trying to be motivated: perspectives on learning from younger students accessing higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 323-336.
Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into 'approaches to learning' research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 89-104.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316.
Malcolm, J., & Zukas, M. (2001). Bridging pedagogic gaps: conceptual discontinuities in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 33-42.
Marton, F., & Slj, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I - Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Slj, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice - a critical look at phenomenographic inquiry and the appeal to experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(22), 173-190.
Wankat, P. C., & Oreovicz, F. S. (1993). Teaching engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Webb, G. (1996). Understanding staff development. London: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Webb, G. (1997). Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of phenomenography. Higher Education, 33(2), 195-212.
Modality refers to the implicit level of commitment to the truth of a statement shown in the linguistic forms used ADDIN EN.CITE Halliday19949051M.A.K. Halliday1994An introduction to functional grammarLondonEdward Arnold2nd(Halliday, 1994).
m n $ % z { l y I J 4
5
K
L
< = f g p q w x o p j k q r h ! ! ! ! % % &