Adaptación del sistema visual

Research (Emerson, Stevens & Muirhead, 2008; Head & Eisenberg, 2009b, 2010; Walden & Peacock, 2006) has suggested that a focus on the research process is essential for learning development. Head and Eisenberg’s (2010) findings suggest that students need to be held accountable for the research they conduct and, as part of the assessment, they should “substantiate their research strategy, evaluation and selection of sources and show hard evidence of critical thinking about information” (p. 39). Yet, as suggested in section 2.5.4, ineffective time management may lead to students bypassing key stages of the research and writing process. To encourage students to reflect on the research process, an assessment tool was needed which would provide an accurate overview of the process, and become a useful tool for completing future tasks. The i-map (Walden & Peacock, 2006, 2008) fulfilled both of these functions.

According to Emerson et al. (2008), “i-maps provide a visual description of the sources students have engaged with over the research stages of a project” (p. 1), and therefore increase an awareness of IL competencies. Although i-maps were a new concept for BEP instructors, they have been used to create an explicit focus on process in two first-year writing courses at one NZ university for the past few years (Emerson et al., 2008). In both writing courses, a series of scaffolded in-class activities contributed to the development of the i-map during the research, planning and writing process. These include brainstorming, developing questions to investigate, identifying keywords for information

searches, evaluating and justifying sources and creating thesis statements (Figure 10). Formative feedback is provided through the teaching and peer- assessment conducted within the courses. While the i-map itself is a summative account of the research process that can be assessed, the activities used to create the i-map are effectively contributing to development of IL within the research and writing process.

In Course 1-2, the i-map was introduced to raise awareness of the key stages in the research and writing process, and actively engage students in starting on their essay task early. Jacinta initially provided instructions (Appendix 10), but a number of students requested models and an outline of the suggested steps to go through, as this was an unfamiliar assessment tool. Unlike the use of the i- map in the writing courses, where progressive tasks are used to support the i- map development, in Course 1-2, the i-map was submitted with the essay; thus, students were required to reflect on their process and construct the i-map without formative feedback.

Student feedback on the i-map was mixed in Cycle One. They recognised the purpose of the task as encouraging them to focus on their research process:

S1: To look at your research process. How you think and what steps you took. How your ideas join together and come together at the end in your conclusion. I don't really know. I think for me it's like reflecting on your process that you have taken, but I suppose in real life I'm not that linear; I don't go through a step by step process. I probably start looking for things and then start piecing it all together, so I don't necessarily follow like a linear flow chart sort of pattern.

S2: I don't know why you want it. But for me what it does, I can improve my timings, because if I can do that for every assignment, I can see where I spend quite a lot of time. It is quite easy to just sprawl everywhere and not be so focused, but if I can see and identify different kinds of strategies that I use, then maybe I can improve through time. At least for me, it was really really useful, because at the end I saw that I should have written about this, this, and this, and I thought ‘actually, I didn’t’ (SFG/1-2/C1/C). I think it's like a smart brainstorm. … It's like a brainstorm and for me it was based afterwards, but I should have done it before. But still, I think it has a lot of value (SFG/1- 2/C1/C).

Figure 10: Example of an i-map

Students who saw the i-map as a useful tool for helping them successfully complete their essay indicated it helped direct the essay and was “a good tool and fast to create” (SSV/1-2/C1/C). It seemed that those who didn’t have a defined research process valued the way the key steps of the research and writing process were outlined in the i-map task. For example. one focus group student appreciated the tool as a way to focus on the writing process. Although she was a capable student academically, she found planning her ideas logically before writing challenging and found the i-map helped her stay focused. Students suggested that submission prior to the essay with formative feedback on their thesis statements and plans would have made it a more valuable and useful tool:

S1: Maybe if you had to submit it before the essay, you know at the end of the research phase, I supposed that might crank on to time management … Maybe that would help if you had to do it while you were doing your research, rather than at the end with the essay.

S2: Hand out the assignment and maybe give people a week to hand back the i-map, and then mark it and give feedback, and then start on the essay (SFG/1-2/C1/C). Two key challenges emerged with the i-map task in Cycle One. Firstly, rather than completing the i-map during the process, a number of students completed the i-map retrospectively after the essay was written without fully understanding or engaging with the purpose of the task:

I did it afterwards. But I thought about it during my essay. One thing is I really didn't know how to do it. I didn't know what we were meant to be writing, what we should be showing, where to start it, and then [Jacinta] showed us like use keywords and write what you think. I don't really know what I think about keywords; keywords to me, I didn't really understand the point in doing it (SFG/1-2/C1/C).

It was almost an evaluation of what we had done rather than showing the process (SSV/1-2/C1/C).

The second challenge connected to ownership of the process. Those who didn’t like the i-map commented that they had their own ways of planning and writing, and that the i-map just added to their workload. Some found it:

S1: annoying and irrelevant.

S2: part of the assessment and I wouldn't do it otherwise (SSV/1-2/C1/C).

Despite the challenges with the i-map, Jacinta enjoyed seeing the visual depiction of the students’ journeys as they completed the essay. She saw value

in having students identify the key steps in their research process and decided to use the i-map again in the following semester. Jacinta recognised that:

It was learning for me as well, because I have never done an i-map myself, and had never even seen one before, let alone taught anything about it. So now that I have been through one round, it will be clearer what it is and what I am expecting to see (IMN/Jacinta/C1).