Bacteriemia por Staphylococcus aureus en poblaciones especiales

Establishing a culture of learning within a classroom will clearly need to be mindful of the potential diversity within a cohort. In the context of this research there is the additional factor of the duration of the sessions with students continually using computers as the main resource. Consequently spatial movement is limited and interacting with other students, aside from those sat either side,

may need nurturing to ensure there is recognition amongst students that peer interaction for learning is a powerful learning strategy.

As classrooms are formal places of learning they can be imagined as a temporal learning

community, albeit one with disparate elements. For it to function effectively as this it ideally needs the participation of all members (Watkins, 2005). The goal is fostering a culture of learning where students share their individual efforts. This promotes knowledge and understanding of the subject being studied, as knowledge is elaborated through scaffolding. The term scaffold has become synonymous with Vygotsky’s concept of ZPD that is explained as follows:

It is the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. (Vygotsky, 1978: 86)

Whereas Vygotsky offered the option of adult, or peer interaction the definition of scaffolding was initially more adult dependent and directed to young children.

…the adult “controlling” those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate on and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence. The task thus proceeds to a successful conclusion (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976: 90 original emphasis).

There are models of social learning specific to the classroom, such as cooperative learning where there is structured, positive interdependence (Slavin, 1990), with individual accountability as students work towards shared learning goals (Johnson, Johnson and Smith, 1998). However, the facilitation, or guidance is through the educator that is present. Peer learning, is ‘defined as the acquisition of knowledge and skill through active helping and supporting among status equals or matched companions’ (Topping, 2005: 631). Where capabilities are similar, both peers find a cognitive challenge in the interaction (ibid.), and there is a stress for good communications skills to afford the crystallisation of thought into language. Many of these models are applied to the needs of young children. Tinto (2003) adds that university students engage in solo performances as isolated learners, and that establishing an effective learning community requires a course that promotes it through content and pedagogy. There is the caveat that ‘some students do not like learning with others’ (ibid: 6). Much discussion on peer learning appears to be formal and instructed, rather than something that occurs on a needs basis. With this in mind, Tang’s (1993) reference to ‘spontaneous collaborative learning’, albeit from a small scale study, identified that

student-initiated cooperative learning, and therefore student centred in nature and content, ‘when initiated and self-structured by students’ own efforts, tends to lead to a deep approach to studying and to better learning outcomes, especially the structural quality of assignments’ (Tang, 1993: 127). The study involved tertiary students in China where there is national culture of collective effort, but the examples were not unlike the self-initiated study groups that can be observed in any university library. Notably, Biggs (1987) when comparing students who studied on their own and

collaboratively, identified that the majority of self-studying students adopted a surface approach to learning, thus reinforcing the value of students collaborating with peers.

An institution can aim to initiate a positive learning culture through the range of artefacts it deploys within its buildings, such as posters illustrating student work and notices of academic achievement and therefore each site can project an internal culture of learning and success. Notionally, the college can be considered as one broad ‘community of practice’, a concept shaped around situated learning in a colocated working environment (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). However, this type of community can become unstable if there are any variables within its formation,

especially those that continually restructure a college environment (Hodkinson, Biesta and James, 2004: 9). Communities of practice gain their identity through a shared domain of interest (Wenger, 2006) and this potentially fits within a classroom context, but it would need the whole cohort to participate, even if some were on the periphery. However, with each tutor that taught the students it would change its dynamic and membership. So as a concept it is useful but at risk of being

potentially unwieldy. James and Biesta (2007: 138) suggest that as a framework ‘the periphery-to- centre movement at the core of situated learning’ is conceptually awkward with a group that can be unstable and that instability may come through any change in tutors, or within the students

themselves and their behaviour. James and Biesta (ibid: 143) adopt the use of the term learning cultures, as a means of explaining that it is not ‘the environments in which people learn but the social practices through which they learn, which means they exist through the actions, dispositions and interpretations of the participants’. But, add that the diversity of FE could be reflected through different types of learning cultures occurring within one institution. For example: ‘we could classify cultures according to the types of students in them’ (ibid: 60), such as age, gender, educational experience and so on. When focusing on one FE cohort this could become a difficult means of classification due to the potential diversity of students that FE attracts.

When considering the learning context of a cohort of students sat down for hours at a time, each working at their computer, there is the ironic isolation that can occur, despite the proximity of

others and the social factor of one cohort in one room. When the academic tasks seem arduous and a break is needed it is reasonable to anticipate that students drift onto alternate uses for the

computer, other than coursework. I have personally experienced this when working at home for long periods and a short focus on something else that is unrelated can help to re-engage with the task in hand. However, if this occurs in a classroom situation it could expose a weakness in this type of learning environment and potentially the curricula. Tang’s (1993) notion of the spontaneous interaction that can occur amongst students does appear to fit as a potential strategy to nurture amongst students who mostly work independently, but in proximity to others. However, this example was set within a nation with a tradition of ‘non-individual collectivistic orientation’ (ibid: 119). A tutor initiated strategy for cooperative learning could be too formal and time controlled in nature for those more impromptu needs that might emerge due to the different rates of progression that can occur when students work independently on one very prolonged task. Taking into account the potential diversity of students in one cohort, a solution could be imagined as a blending of tutor led initiatives to establish a micro learning culture that would become established within a cohort and therefore transferable to other sessions, regardless of tutor change. This could afford a more spur-of-the-moment collaborative and supportive practice act as an aid in developing the level of learning cohesion within a cohort.