Concepto de Funcionario Público, Servidor Público y Empleado Público.

At the end of the first research cycle, the teacher raised questions about content knowledge in relation to critical thinking in the midterm survey for students to evaluate their learning (Appendix G). Their answers to the question about the effectiveness of PBL in helping to develop their critical thinking in media provided the context for the analysis of focus group interviews in particular. As Table 6.1 shows, 60% (21 out of 35) students praised positively the effectiveness of PBL.

These answers focused on two factors— teamwork and problem-solving reflecting the constructivist characteristics of PBL; however, they reported confusion pertaining to the complexity of applying critical thinking to deconstructing news media.

Table 6. 1 Students’ responses to midterm survey question about the effectiveness of PBL in developing critical thinking

Question: Do you think it is effective in developing your critical thinking via PBL in relation to news media and propaganda? Why?

Yes (n =21) Students’ responses No (n = 14) Students’ responses Category:

Teamwork

1. Through brainstorming, I can think more deeply and widely. (brainstorming n = 3)

2. Everyone has his or her way of thinking, and we have a lot of ideas to learn. It’s a challenge to everyone. (idea-challenging n = 4)

Category: Confusion

1. I don’t understand it very clearly. (indefiniteness n = 7)

2. Not now. Because there is limited information in my brain, I can’t use it to connect to news well. 3. I still feel a bit confused about what critical thinking is.

Category: Problem- solving

1. From thinking of the problem, I can search information and learn things more easily. (problem-analysis n = 3) 2. I will follow the question to develop my critical thinking. (questioning n = 2)

3. We find the problem from news and try to give the solution to it. (problem-solving n = 4)

Category: Others

News is just news. They are not related.

Given the established interview questions as shown in Appendix E and issues emerging from students’ responses, this study adopted the combination of concept- driven and data-driven strategies. Students’ answers might not really fit in with what questions aimed to ask; the dada of their responses to learning, teaching, and course expectations were summarised to obtain data-driven themes. Drawing on Schreier’s (2012, p. 107) idea of ‘progressively summarising’ data, the researcher found it useful to refer to Hermann’s (2010) four-level coding frame consisting of impressions subdivided into positive, critical, and neutral dimensions, constructive features, and difficulties at the first level. The researcher thus selected students’ responses relevant to the research question, classified similar ideas into groups under labels, compared and generated emerging sub-themes under main themes,

and created a coding frame with definitions for themes, as presented in Table 6.2. This procedure was to avoid limiting data analysis merely to the agenda of the researcher (Ezzy, 2002). The data were coded with rules and structured by the researcher, and another colleague conducted the coding again. The inconsistency was approached by the researcher who recoded after six months. For how students thought of the contribution of PBL to their critical thinking, the two main themes were impression (coding no. 1) and key features (coding no. 2). Under impression,

positive associated with implementation, method, and practicability and usefulness, as well as critical, and neutral emerged as sub-themes. Under the first

theme— impression positive implementation, students responded to stimulus

for learning, positive interaction in teamwork, and improvement in knowing. Under

the same theme— impression positive method, students mentioned various

resources in the midterm but various activities in the final, yet they also referred to time limitation and the teacher’s evaluation as critical comments. Under key features, problem-raising, problem-solving, analysis, and discussion emerged as

sub-themes in the midterm, while the sub-themes were reduced to problem-solving and discussion in the final. Under difficulties (coding no. 3) in learning,

complication and uncertainty associated with definition and direction emerged as

sub-themes in the midterm, and unfamiliarity, disagreement in teamwork, and

uncertainty emerged as the sub-themes in the final. Students’ responses were coded

as units of coding based on their group numbers and the sequence of answers in the interview transcripts; for example, the first response in group one was coded as 1.1, and so forth. There were 138 units of coding relevant to the research question, including 60 units from midterm interview responses and 78 units from final ones. It is important to note that, however, not all sub-themes were evident during both interviews; the teacher-researcher interpreted students’ responses according to the actual context with engagement in conversation. The overlapping ideas involved in sub-themes will be explored with students’ cases.

Table 6. 2 Themes and subthemes from focus group interview responses  Impression (coding no. 1)

o Positive (coding no. 1.1)

 Implementation (coding no. 1.1.1)

 Stimulus for learning (coding no. 1.1.1.1) (This applies if

students thought that the course could stimulate their willingness or curiosity to learn more to enhance their criticality and consequently be helpful for their future.):

(Midterm units of coding 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.10, 4.1, 5.2, 6.3, 7.1) (Final units of coding 1.1, 2.13)  Positive interaction in teamwork (coding no. 1.1.1.2) (This

applies if students talked about the benefits of working with group members to develop critical thinking.): (Midterm units

of coding 2.14, 6.7) (Final units of coding 1.4, 2.8, 3.7, 4.6, 5.9, 6.5, 7.7)

 Improvement in knowing (coding no. 1.1.1.3) (This applies if

students reflected on their improvement in abilities, including considering different perspectives, analysis, argumentation, deeper understanding, making judgements, or problem- solving.): (Midterm units of coding 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 4.5,

5.1, 5.8, 5.10, 6.2, 6.5, 6.6, 7.2) (Final units of coding 1.10, 2.3, 2.7, 2.11, 2.14, 3.2, 3.6, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.9, 5.5, 5.8, 5.11, 6.7, 7.1, 7.5, 7.6)

 Method (coding no. 1.1.2)

 Interest in the topics provided (coding no. 1.1.2.1): (Midterm units of coding 1.8, 6.1) (Final units of coding 1.6, 1.7, 2.5, 2.6, 3.5, 4.5, 5.6, 5.7, 6.2)

 Various resources (coding no. 1.1.2.2): (Midterm units of coding 2.8, 2.9)

 Various activities (coding no. 1.1.2.2): (Final units of coding 3.3, 3.14)

 Practicability and usefulness (coding no. 1.1.3) (This applies if

students mentioned what was learned in this class was practical or useful for their real life.): (Midterm unit of coding 2.5) (Final units of

coding 4.4, 4.10, 5.12, 6.4, 6.8, 7.2, 7.3, 7.10) o Critical (coding no. 1.2)

 Time limitation (coding no. 1.2.1): (Midterm unit of coding 1.6) (Final units of coding 5.3, 7.4)

 The teacher’s evaluation (coding no. 1.2.2) (This applies if students

talked about their uncertainty although they received the teacher’s evaluation feedback.): (Midterm units of coding 4.3, 4.7) (Final unit of

coding 1.8)

o Neutral (coding no. 1.3): (Midterm unit of coding 2.11) (Final units of coding 1.9, 6.1)

Midterm focus group Final focus group

 Key features (coding no. 2) o Problem raising (coding no. 2.1):

(Midterm units of coding 1.9, 5.6, 5.7)

o Problem-solving (coding no. 2.2): (Midterm unit of coding 2.6) o Analysis (coding no. 2.3): (Midterm

units of coding 3.4, 4.4) o Discussion (coding no. 2.4):

(Midterm units of coding 1.10, 7.3)

 Key features (coding no. 2) o Problem-solving (coding

no. 2.1): (Final units of coding 3.9, 4.7, 5.10, 6.6, 7.8)

o Discussion (coding no. 2.2): (Final unit of coding 3.8)

o Complication (coding no. 3.1)

(This applies if students mentioned that the process of studying was difficult because of complicated information.): (Midterm units of

coding 2.7, 2.13)

o Uncertainty (coding no. 3.2)  Definition (coding no.

3.2.1): (Midterm units of coding 1.7, 1.11)

 Direction (coding no. 3.2.2) (This applies if students

mentioned that they were confused about what topic they should choose, how to start, or whether they adopted the appropriate method.): (Midterm units of

coding 1.12, 2.3, 2.12, 2.15, 4.2, 4.6, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.9, 6.4)

o Unfamiliarity (coding no. 3.1) (This applies if

students mentioned that the course was difficult because of some unfamiliar topics or terms.): (Final

units of coding 2.2, 3.1, 5.1)

o Disagreement in teamwork (coding no. 3.2) (This

applies if students

mentioned that it was hard to accomplish the task because of the difficulty in reaching consensus.):

(Final units of coding 1.3, 2.1, 2.4, 2.9, 2.10, 2.12, 3.4, 6.3)

o Uncertainty (coding no. 3.3) (This applies when

students were not sure about what topic to choose, how to start, or which direction to take.): (Final

units of coding 1.2, 1.5, 4.8, 5.2, 5.4, 7.9)