ENTORNO DE DESARROLLO INTEGRADO (IDE)

Starting with the ATL framework, it suggests conceptions of learning, perceptions of learning task and perceptions of the learning environment all influence which approach to learning an individual student adopts, which in turn is linked to the outcomes of learning (Figure 2.1). As was noted in the last chapter, examples of surface, deep and strategic approaches to learning were indeed found in the phenomenographic outcome spaces for the first two research questions. In the outcome space for understandings of Master’s level learning Categories 2 and 3 focus on engaging with ideas (Figure 5.1) and reflect simpler and more complex understandings of learning which are analogous to surface and deeper conceptions of learning (Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984). For processes of learning in a NL environment, again within the more complex categories which engaged with the act of networked learning, surface and deeper approaches can be seen in the increasing complexity within the categories (Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4) and strategic approaches are seen when individual goals or assessment is focused on. See Chapter 5, sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.5 for more detail here. A further aspect of the ATL framework seen in these findings is the idea that it is not developmental. In other words, students do not begin their education journey with surface approaches and build to deeper ones. Rather students are seen to adopt multiple approaches depending on the learning context. Although phenomenography looks at the collective rather than the individual, as was noted in the last Chapter a brief analysis of individual student

accounts found that indeed there is no match between complexity of category of description and stage of educational journey. A student in Year 1 may describe more complex understandings and interactions while a graduate may describe less complex ones, and indeed the same student may describe different types of interactions depending on the situation. So evidence of all three approaches to learning are seen here as is evidence of adopting different approaches in different situations.

Moving to the model of NL, it suggests that learners, tutors and resources are connected to each other in a network, facilitated by ICT, and that learning emerges from critical dialogues in the interactions and connections within this network (Figure 2.2). The findings for the second research question indicate that indeed connections and interactions are taking place across the network between individual students and resources, lecturers and their peers, and particularly in the more complex categories of description, some levels of critical dialogue are observed (Figures 5.2, 5.3, 5.4). What is also noted in the themes of increasing complexity in the three outcome spaces is an expanding sense of self, others and tutors (Tables 5.3, 5.4). This expanding sense of self and the understanding that students and lecturers can be perceived in more or less holistic ways reflects other recent phenomenographic NL research (Cutajar, 2014).

A further finding across all four outcome spaces is an increasing sense of self-direction in terms of both thought and study in the more complex categories. This is an expectation for Master’s level learning as described in the European Framework of Qualifications (Table 1.1). However, the level of challenge described by students to achieve this independence and self-direction was not expected.

So while both the ATL and NL frameworks explain some of the ways learning is described in these accounts from an individual and more social perspective, there are several aspects which are not accounted for well within either lens and need further exploration. While both frameworks offer a view on the more complex categories of description in the outcome spaces, neither capture well the categories of lowest complexity. Specifically, these are the focus on academic skills within the outcome space for understandings of Master’s level learning (Figure 5.1), and the non-inclusive categories within the outcome spaces for processes of networked learning, those where interactions with other parts of the network reveal students as unable or unwilling to engage in the act of networked learning (Figures 5.2, 5.3, 5.4). Also, for research question two there were lower than expected levels of critical dialogue with peers and lecturers. Finally, for research question one (understandings of Master’s level learning) the challenges described in developing the skills and thinking required for Master’s level learning was noted.

It is suggested here the reason these types of findings are not accommodated within the ATL or NL framework is that neither one accounts well for the multiple contexts within which these learning processes are taking place. Context can be theorised in different ways. One way to view context is from the social theory perspective of structure and agency. Ashwin (2008) discusses the overall lack of attention to agency and structure within ‘close-up’ research in teaching, learning and assessment in higher education and contends focus is needed “on both individual’s intentions and on the ways in which these intentions are structured by institutions and wider social structures” to improve the explanatory power of much educational research (p. 152). His position sees the social world as dynamic and emergent so structure and agency are processes, in fact

they can be seen as the same process viewed under a different lens. Thus he uses the term ‘structural-agentic processes’, as in “structural-agentic descriptions of social processes attempt to give a sense of both the intentional projects of individual and collective agents, and the ways in which these projects are enabled or constrained” (Ashwin, 2009, p. 21). Another view of context is seen in complexity and dynamic systems theory, explored by Haggis in her longitudinal research following 12 students in higher education over 5 years (Haggis, 2007, 2008, 2011). In Haggis (2007) she explains that “in anything conceptualised as a complex, dynamic system, the interactions are multiple, and multiply connected, and it is the multiplicity of the interactions through time which produces effects” (p. 39, her emphases). Within this view, learning or outcomes are effects which emerge from a complex, adaptive system and therefore an acknowledgement of specific and localised context is of utmost importance. In a later article she explores further and suggests this notion of emergence is quite radical as it means reconceptualising structure. “From a complexity perspective, things ‘emerge’ at certain points in the history of a set of multiple interactions, rather than as the result of ‘deep’ generative causal structures” (Haggis, 2008, p. 174). In presenting the empirical findings from her study (2011) she identified three types of context which cross the multiple and simultaneously interacting systems and levels:

 The dynamic system which is the focus of the analysis (in her study this is each individual student who themselves was conceptualised as being a complex adaptive system);

 The group (s) or institution (s) within which the focus system is embedded;

Each of these different views on context acknowledges the need to look more closely at the context of the individual student and what is at play for them, as well as the context of the broader institutional and societal settings of the programmes under study.

Both Ashwin and Haggis (and others, as seen in Chapter 2) have directly criticised the ATL framework for its lack of attention to the situatedness of the learning process and its associated lack of attention to structure and agency. Therefore, it is no surprise that in this study the same critique is being made. However, it is also suggested here the NL framework would benefit from more explicitly acknowledging the importance of context for explaining learning within networked learning environments. To reach that final conclusion the findings identified above as not well accounted for in either framework are discussed under four themes, and under each theme other ways of explaining the findings are explored. Individual context and the broader context (primarily the transnational setting) will be highlighted throughout as some of the possible ways of providing a deeper explanation of these findings. For the transnational context, the three transnational themes described in Chapter 5 will be referred to throughout this section: English as a second language (ESL); previous educational system if it has been a non-Western one; and the tensions between global ideas and adapting them (or not) for the local context.