A Critique of Participative Discourses Adopted in
Networked Learning
Michael Reynolds1, Madeleine Sclater2 and
Sue Tickner2
Lancaster
University1, University of Glasgow2
m.reynolds@lancaster.ac.uk, m.sclater@hatii.arts.gla.ac.uk, s.tickner@udcf.gla.ac.uk
The predominant discourse of e-learning is frequently focused on the
adoption of participative learning approaches involving co-operation,
collaboration and peer assessment incorporating implied principles of democracy
and ‘community’. There are tensions in the practical application of these
features, particularly in relation to working with ‘difference' when comparing
the underlying course philosophy with student experience of such courses. There
is an implicit assumption that being participative
means sharing control but what, in practice, does this entail for the students?
Different interpretations of participative approaches will be identified
(pedagogical, ideological or both) and an illustrative case discussed in which
the principle of participation was applied to the design and assessment of
assignments.
Participative discourse, difference, power, control, community
As concepts of collaboration and participation are central to the Equel
Project, our starting point for this paper is that they should be interrogated,
rather than taken for granted. If we consider assessment for example as the
core locus of power and control in an educational programme (Reynolds and
Trehan, 2000), collaborative assessment might be considered the ultimate
application of participative principles.
Yet some courses espousing participative principles do not apply these
principles to the process of assessment.
Furthermore, when collaborative assessment is adopted in a networked learning environment little is known of
its effects on students’ learning experience.
Similarly, the requirement in a 'collaborative programme' for individual
reflection to be made accessible to peers requires a high degree of compliance
from the learners, and the effects of this procedure are also not yet well
understood. Until we question the
assumptions and assertions underlying the use of these principles within
networked learning contexts it is difficult to evaluate, let alone promote,
their role in the learning process.
In this paper we distinguish two broad areas of application of control,
which we see as implicated in participative course designs. These are: substantive processes, (such as the curriculum - learning about
ideas, concepts and theories), and the more structural/procedural
processes (the detail of the course design, teaching and assessment
methods, roles, schedules, instructional material, and the architecture of the
networked learning environment). Different
interpretations within the discourse of participative approaches will also be
proposed and looked for in the samples of course text and students’ reported
experience of a participative networked learning programme.
The case study on which we will draw focuses on
student’s experiences of participating in a networked learning module
entitled ‘New technology and Lifelong learning’ which forms part of a taught,
campus based MSc in Adult and Continuing Education at the University of
Glasgow. The original purpose of the case study was to look at how the
principle of participation was applied to the design and assessment of
assignments. In this further
examination of the data we are looking for reflections in students’ accounts of
their experience of the participative aspects of the programme and of the ways
in which they may have experienced ‘difference’.
Our aim is to distinguish different ideas that underlie the use of such
terms as co-operation, participation, collaboration, democracy and community in
learning designs and in descriptions of practice. We have chosen the term ‘discourses’ because this implies that
they are not simply descriptions but imply an intention to ‘shape’ the social relations
in which students and teachers are involved.
The examples are mostly taken from networked
learning. The account which follows
inevitably obscures some differences and exaggerates others but there is a
sense in the literature and in our own practice, of quite different ideas – pedagogical and ideological – which are
present in the way people write about ‘participative’ approaches to
learning. From a pedagogical perspective, participative approaches may be adopted
because they are seen as most likely to support learning. Such approaches may be based on
psychological principles (the motivational ‘school’ of theory and practice) but
may also indicate attempts to manipulate learners by creating an impression of
involvement through a superficial application of 'participative' methods (the instrumental
approach). From an ideological perspective, participative approaches may be adopted
because they are believed to transmit the same social and political values
necessary for the development of 'citizenship', which in turn is believed
necessary to support a more democratic society.
These values are most clearly seen in the rationale for student centred
learning approaches and, more recently, in 'learning communities', both of
which owe much of their inheritance to the traditions of 'democracy' in
education. On the basis of our own
practice and from accounts in the literature, we have tentatively identified
four distinct versions of ‘participative’ discourses which we have called
Instrumental, Emancipatory,Communitarian
and Cosmopolitan.
This is the approach in which teams, groups and even the idea of
‘community’ is used as a motivational device. While the instrumental approach may seem
more interactive than conventional teaching methods, the structure of the
course, the methods and curriculum are determined by teachers. They select materials unilaterally, and
there are some fairly normative values about how groups should work which are conveyed and reinforced by the reward
process. If such a course is described
by the tutors as ‘participative’ you would at least have to ask ‘participating
in what, exactly?’. A distinction we
find useful throughout this analysis is between the direction of students’
activities within the structure of the course and the methods used and the
selection of frameworks, concepts and theories that are intended to shape their
ideas and assumptions.
Emancipatory
This perspective is illustrated by writers who view CMC as a means by
which hierarchical power differentials can be leveled out amongst networked
individuals. Ng(2001)
for example refers to a collaborative learning experience in which
‘participants can relate to one another and share a sense of community and a
common goal’.
This is perhaps where most ‘participative’ practice lies. It differs from the Instrumental approach in
that there is a belief in the possibility and the value of people learning from
each other and that this not only enhances learning but also facilitates
individual development beyond the classroom and the immediate focus of
study. The language of ‘development’
and ‘growth’, with its roots in democratic education and learner-centredness
would probably characterise this approach.
But to belong in this school of practice would probably mean that the pedagogy was tutor-led, even though the
tutors would be more likely to adopt a facilitatory than a didactic mode.
Communitarian
The most obvious example of this is the ‘Learning Community’. It shares with the emancipatory approach, a
fundamental difference with an Instrumental discourse in that democratic
relationship is valued for its own sake, as a belief, not as a motivational
device or means to an end. Pedagogical
and ideological beliefs are brought together in the Learning Community. Learning is seen as self-directed to some
extent because of the emphasis on individual choice in that students are
thought to learn from each other as well as from tutors. How learning is organised is also shared
between tutors and students. Decisions
about the focus for learning, the methods used and the membership of workgroups
are worked out collectively amongst tutors and participants. This is a
pedagogical (collective structures to support collective learning) and an ideological position (a normative model
for how people should work together generally). Assessment can sometimes reflect these values. If so it will be collaborative (peer, self,
tutor assessment). Another common
feature of communitarian approaches is an implicit acceptance of community as a
‘good thing’. This ignores community’s darker side –
coercion, conformity, marginalisation of minority interests and denial or
suppression of difference.
The cosmopolitan approach is a critical
response to the communitarian position (see Reynolds, 2000 for a more
detailed account of this position).
Cosmopolitan discourse also promotes democratic values but with greater
emphasis on difference and learning from difference. It regards proponents of ‘community’ as
unrealistic. Collective arrangements
are seen as vulnerable to the same hierarchies that exist in the social
context. To deny this or imagine it can
be circum-navigated in some way is to collude with dominant interests. More preferable is the idea that we each
belong to multiple and shifting (sub)
communities and these should be acknowledged in the way learning becomes
organised. Taking a research context as an example it is often possible to
identify with some colleagues (and less so with others) on the basis of gender,
nationality, pedagogical values, institutional status, age and so on. Most of the time these differences add interest and richness to working together. But occasionally they might become more
evident as a basis for the emergence of sub-groups when a difference of some
kind becomes too important to people’s ideals, values, or sense of who they are
to be avoided or discounted. Applying
the cosmopolitan discourse to education would mean accepting and valuing this
process, while hoping that an overarching
interest in learning would mean that it was possible to talk, argue and
negotiated across sub-group boundaries rather than fragmented beyond reach.
This basic typology should not obscure the likelihood that a course design
may draw on more than one interpretation in different aspects of its structure,
approach and methods. This is always the limitation of typologies. We hope this provisional analysis, at least,
helps to identify questions that are worth asking in research and in the
process of course design. The questions
we have considered are:
·
What choice do participants have over method, content,
and whom they work with?
·
If ‘participation’ is claimed, participation in what exactly, and where is control of the degree
and object of participation situated?
·
How much control is there over what people do and over what they think?
·
Where are ideas thought to be situated and/or generated
in the student and tutor relationships?
·
How is difference regarded? What happens to minority interests, or to differences of any
kind? Are they worked with or
‘managed’?
·
Do assessment procedures reflect the values implicit in
the other aspects of programme design?
Or if there are inconsistencies, how are these acknowledged and worked
with?
The following research was gathered initially for another purpose, the
principle aim being to examine students’ orientation to collaboration in
network learning. The study was undertaken as a way of gaining a better
understanding of what makes collaboration work (or not) within a networked
environment (Sclater and Bolander 2004). It involved examining the interaction
between students’ learning orientations, course design and assessment
methods. For the purposes of this paper we are re-examining the data.
Our enquiry is an exploratory exercise to progress our ideas on ‘participation’
and ‘difference’. The following research data was gathered from the cohort of
2001.
The campus based MSc in Adult & Continuing Education at Glasgow University offers a networked learning module component entitled “New technology and lifelong learning”. To date, the module has run for four consecutive years since its introduction in 2000. The online module, which is 18 weeks in duration, is the only networked learning module available to students undertaking the MSc and is offered over two consecutive UK academic terms. The aim of the module is to enable participants to appreciate how electronic communications and the Internet might be used to develop and sustain their professional practice. Participants experienced new ways of learning by engaging in dialogue in pairs or groups of varying sizes to reach new understandings in response to a range of identified topics.
The
research data for this paper focuses on the activities of the second half of the module (April – June
2001) where participants worked together in a much more concentrated way by
splitting into smaller groups (comprising two or three people) to explore a
topic of mutual interest, with the aim of writing a joint paper. The ‘collaborative study project’ (8 weeks)
was divided into two phases, a ‘co-operative phase’ and a ‘collaborative phase’
where a combination of an individual (Phase
I) and a group mark (Phase II) was
awarded. After the collaborative
project participants were asked to undertake a critical assessment of each
group’s final paper for which an individual mark was awarded. Our research finding centre on participants
experience of ‘participation’ and
‘difference’ in relation to the assessment of the ‘collaborative project’ and
with respect to the ‘peer review’
The rationale for the collaborative project offered in Term II was to
shift from a less hierarchical to a more open, critical and participative
approach to learning and teaching where the emphasis is on learning from each
other in groups. However, in looking at the module handbook the course design
draws on more than one interpretation in different aspects of its structure,
philosophy and methods. The module appears to embrace a combination of the
instrumental, emancipatory as well as the communitarian discourses which contain
a number of apparent contradictions.
For example, the module can be seen as an example of an Instrumental discourse in that there was
an implied shift from a more transmissive mode to an approach that was more
interactive and learner centred yet the structure, method and curriculum was,
nevertheless, determined by the tutors. In particular, the learners’ motivation
to participate in collaboration was reinforced by the reward process.
“We believe that the introduction of new
technology can be used to enhance learning in situations where there has
already been a shift in teaching style from transmissive modes to more
participative or cooperative and collaborative forms of learning i.e. small
group work where learning is student rather than tutor centred. This module is therefore about the
experience of cooperative and collaborative learning and teaching within small
groups online.” (Module handbook 2001)
The module may also be viewed as representative of the Emancipatory
discourse in that it stresses the belief in the possibility and value in peer
learning whilst similarly facilitating individual development beyond the
classroom.
“Educators now
recognise that learners require teaching methods that will prepare them for a
rapidly changing world. This module
aims to help equip you with the tools and processes that will allow you to
adapt to and influence these changes….it will enable you to identify
opportunities where new knowledge is needed and opportunities to actively
construct this knowledge within real life contexts” (module handbook 2001)
It is also possible to view the module in terms of a Communitarian
discourse because of the emphasis on ‘communal’ knowledge building where
students learn from both their tutors and peers. The handbook implies that the module provides a degree of
individual choice and has a focus on self –directed learning.
Defining roles,
assigning tasks, resolving conflicts, writing joint papers, moderating and
mediating discussions as well as giving feedback on individual and group
projects are just some of the aspects of group work you will be encouraged to
explore as you undertake this module”(module handbook 2001)
However it should be noted that whilst a communitarian ideal was being
espoused the contradiction lies in the fact that there was no room for
negotiation over assessment procedures despite noble attempts at introducing a
‘peer review’.
During the second campus-based workshop (Term
II) participants were introduced to the two-stage process of the collaborative
study project. During Phase I participants were asked to
brainstorm ideas relating to their chosen theme and to then flesh out related
yet separate strands which each person within the group individually
pursued. Whilst this was a phase where each
group member was responsible for their own ‘strand’, they were asked to work
closely together to ensure that their individual pieces of work remained
linked. Participants were given a
period of four weeks for this initial phase, before submitting a 2000 word
paper on their chosen strand to the conferencing system. The tutors awarded an individual mark for this, which amounted
to 30% of the final module total.
During Phase II of the
project, teams came together over a three week period to negotiate and amalgamate
their separate strands into a joint paper to which a group mark was awarded
based on the final artefact. This group
mark amounted to 20% of the final module total. We hoped that by structuring the activity in this way
course participants would find themselves in a position whereby they simply had
to work together in order to create the joint document. However, on completion of the activity the
tutors realised that whilst they were asking participants to collaborate, for
some groups, this clearly turned out to be no more than a copying and pasting
exercise undertaken by one or two people.
In this sense a purely instrumental approach might be considered to have
been implemented. The last activity of
this term involved participants each submitting a critical assessment of the
final group papers.
For the purposes of this paper we concentrate
on the qualitative data gathered from interviews and the online
transcripts. Our aim was to understand participants’
viewpoint on their experience of ‘difference’ by way of in-depth interviews and
to ‘make sense’ from a naturalistic research perspective (Koschman, 1996, p.
15). Broadly speaking the
methodological basis of this research has its roots in the phenomenographic
approach described by Marton (1994) and Richardson (1999) and is an approach
advocated by others researching experiences of online learning (McConnell,
2000). Phenomenography attempts to
describe qualitatively the lived experiences of individuals and the way they
experience and perceive a phenomenon.
Marton defines phenomenography as:
“The empirical study
of the differing ways in which people experience, perceive, apprehend
understand or conceptualise various phenomena in and aspects of the world
around them” (Marton 1994, p. 4425 ).
The phenomenographic approach thus relies on participants’ discursive
accounts of their own experiences and their conceptions of the world. The principal aim for the researcher is to
classify and to discover differences
in people’s experiences of reality (Richardson, 1999 p. 65). Marton made the proposal that the
phenomenographic interview could serve as a means by which aspects of a
person’s experience could be thematized (Richardson, 1999 p.70).
As we summarized earlier in the paper, our intention in this section is
to compare students’ reflections on the collaborative course described in the
case study with the different interpretations of participation developed
earlier. We will look for illustrative
material which support the idea of distinct participative discourses, but given
the limits of this exploratory study, we are conscious that at most the outcome
will be suggestive rather than confirmatory, hopefully providing some pointers
for further investigation.
In the course which we are using as our case study the ‘peer review’
exercise was a crucial element of the design, signifying its emphasis on a
collaborative approach. The intention
was that each collaborative group could receive feedback on their assignment
from the rest of the student cohort. As it turned out, this exercise was
greatly resisted by many of the participants. The students were asked to submit
their critiques as part of their assessed work, which amounted to 10% of the
module mark. The tutors felt that there
was a need to assess this exercise in order to ensure that the participants
would take it seriously. In the interviews with
the participants they realised that the tutors' attempts to persuade
individuals to submit their critiques on other group assignments required a
great deal of compliance and that most merely submitted their comments to
fulfill the course requirements. The comments on each other’s work were, on the
whole thought by participants to be cursory, lacking in critical awareness and
overly positive.
The collaborative
peer assessed project did not work at all.
People were just not critical at all really. They all ended up the same. Everyone said the same things and I
think in the end these were not the things that were interesting really.
So an attempt by the tutors to create a less hierarchical, more
participative approach by encouraging collaboration where it might be argued it
counts most – in the assessment process - was resisted by at least some of the
students. Furthermore, illustrating a
dilemma in participative approaches, there remains a sense of inevitability in
the way tutors and students remain defined by a hierarchical relationship, as
reflected in the metaphor of rebellion in the following extract:
I was thinking of
not doing it (peer review). The only
reason why I did it was because everyone else did it and I thought it would be
mean to say I am not doing it. I think
if you [tutors] had done it face to face I think you would have had a rebellion
on your hands.
The reasons this student gave for engaging in peer assessment are
significant in working with collaborative designs. In the interview she pointed out that she was prepared to
contribute her critique only because she did not wish to let the others down,
as they also had to undertake this exercise under duress. She sensed that, had it been conducted in a
face-to-face context, the tutors would not have found the participants very
co-operative. This is interesting in
that it suggests that the networked environment was, in part, responsible for
diffusing what could have been a ‘rebellion’.
But these observations are also significant in illustrating the
frustrations of participative designs, particularly where there is an
expectation of consensus as a defining characteristic of ‘collaboration’ –
often a characteristic of community-based interpretations. So in our case
study, it could also be argued that participants felt inhibited in airing their
grievances within the text based environment because of the real possibility
for their communication to be misinterpreted by classmates. It certainly seems that some were
particularly concerned about this. For
example, although some welcomed the opportunity to engage in debate it did not
seem as though that there was a good level of critical awareness during the
collaborative project - including the peer assessments. The fact that the
participants knew each other in person, if not by sight, seemed to be a factor
preventing people from being honest with one another.
People were not
really critical and I know I was not either and it is understandable why.. I
think the fact that we knew each other had an effect
As a response to this problem, one interviewee suggested that group
participants should be asked to submit three positive comments on the projects rather than a general critique
which could be misinterpreted, and that negative feedback be left to the
tutors.
…maybe all you need
to do is ask for three positive aspects of the projects because inevitably I
think even with the most constructive criticism in the world - no matter how
you word it - people can take it personally and to be negative. I must admit I did not care for it because
it did not feel like people were being very positive….….. if you had said right we would like you to make
some 3 positive comments on each other’s project. And kept the negative for the tutor!”
The discomfort of changing the social process of assessment is in part therefore
a wish to maintain good relationships within the course. But not only so. Students who in their working lives are also teachers for
example, have the additional discomfort after years of educational
socialization of having their role expectations disrupted by participative
approaches.
I do assessments (as
a teacher) myself and I find that easier because that is my role. I think it is psychological …you learn
different roles whether it be a learner role or a student role or tutor role…
putting people in that psychological role of marking other people’s work….
didn’t appeal because you are in the student role and you don’t feel
comfortable being in the tutor role
These views are not representative of the whole student group
however. Some welcomed the opportunity
for peer review and the chance to receive critical comments from others in the
group
..it ( the peer
assessment exercise) opened up to a different level what this course should be
about. About developing ourselves as
adult educators. I found it surprising
that people said that they did not want to be critical
As educators concerned to develop collaborative approaches to networked
learning, there are some of these findings that seem as of particular
significance. First, there is a tendency
for students in this situation to experience collaboration as the tutors'
agenda, not theirs. This is not
suprising. It often is our agenda - at
least at the outset. Second, and
paradoxically, collaboration can be undermined when it applied to assessment
because of students' concerns that their relationships during the programme
will be undermined by it. Third, we say
paradoxical, because assessment is arguably the most important aspect of an
educational programme in which to introduce collaborative principles. It is this intervention that develops the
design from the instrumental to a more fundamentally participative
approach. Yet as a student observed,:
assessment was partly responsible for constraining what people said to each
other and which led as a consequence to a lack of debate and dialogue.
People were just not
being critical… I think because people were having to do the same thing – it’s
the assessment as well. It gets in the
way of being critical because you are being assessed
In addition to illustrating some ways in which students can find the
introduction of collaboration problematical, students' reports of their
experience that we have included in the previous section also give some sense
of how difference plays a part. Indeed
it seemed as though it was the avoidance of difference which made the debate
anodyne for some of them, undermining the opportunity for critique intended to
benefit all students on the programme.
It seems clear also that there are quite different responses to peer
assessment among the student group - whether attracted to it or wary of
it.
Furthermore - and an important criteria few suggest for evaluating any
collaborative educational approach - the possibility that this difference does
not appear to be addressed contributes to the mechanistic approach to peer
assessment and feedback which was disappointing to some of the students
interviewed. As course designers we see
this as a dilemma. The challenge being
to find a form of collaborative working in which differences can be addressed
and worked with. Our brief cameo of
this programme suggests that advocating collaboration and consensus does not
readily support working with difference and possibly gets in the way - a similar
view was expressed by a participant who felt strongly about not sounding too
critical.
Because part of my
job I am an assessor I find it quite easy to assess and come up with an opinion
but the bit I found difficult was that this was my peer group. I felt that I did not want to criticize anything anyone had written because my work
was no better so I found that quite daunting.
I did not want to crush anybody by coming out with anything too damning
really, it was quite difficult.
Other differences are indicated by students' accounts of the
programme. For example, preferred
methods of working, or the timing of assessment which some found difficult
because of its being at the end of the module, believing that that there could
have been a more positive way of ending the course, although not all students
held this view.
The timing was
difficult…. But if it had to be put in ( peer assessment) I would not put it right at the very
end. I would have another activity
right after that because it was not the best thing to have finished off on…and
not to have had any more dialogue with anyone after that wasn’t very
positive…So at least another activity after that and then give people a chance
to come back to each other.
The research has underlined the need to follow up the questions we raised
at the beginning. Do participative approaches make it possible for students to
work with 'difference'? Does the
networked learning environment support or hinder working with difference? We have noted this and noted the negative
aspects of community such as compliance, and there is no doubt that the more
positive aspects of community can be a source of considerable support to course
members, especially when they experienced difficulties of one kind or another. Nevertheless our examination of students’
experience of this programme shows some of the dilemmas in working with
participative approaches. In our case study it was clearly the course
designers’ wish that critique would be encouraged through extending participation
to include assessment yet it seemed as if collaboration and consensual norms
did not readily lead to stimulating debate and formative critique when applied
to this key component of the educational process.
The authors gratefully thank the postgraduate students of Year 2001 for
taking part in this study.
Bolander, K. and Sclater, M, Factors influencing students’
orientation to collaboration in networked learning.
Ng, K.C. (2001) Using e-mail to foster collaboration in
distance education. Open Learning 16
(2) 191-200.
Reynolds, M. (2000)
‘Bright lights and the pastoral idyll' Management Learning. 31 (1) 67-81.
Reynolds, M and Trehan, K. (2000) Assessment: a critical
perspective. Studies in Higher Education,
25, (3) 267-278
Richardson, 1999
Sclater, M and Bolander, K (2004). Factors influencing students’ orientation to
collaboration in networked learning. In. Banks, S, Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V.
and McConnell, D (Eds.) Advances in
Networked Learning Research Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.