Complete thesis - Murdoch University

Students enrolled in ENG260 during semester 1 2003 (the period February to June) were theparticipants in this cycle of the study. However, as is discussed in Chapter 7, the characteristicsof this cohort were markedly different from that of previous years.As with Cycle 1, evaluating the success of this intervention is based on strategies in severaldimensions: the success of the implementation of the PBL model, and the effect of theintervention on the development of the student cohort, the latter in terms of both performancein assessable tasks and their perceptions of learning in this environment, based on feedbacksought. Triangulation was achieved by comparing the interpretation of each sub-group ofdata, and of quantitative with qualitative results. Chapter 7 presents an analysis of the datacollected in this cycle and the findings drawn from its evaluation.The results of this cycle indicated the PBL environment was also achieving some of thegoals hoped for: students appeared more confident of their skills, and more willing to beinnovative. However, they felt they had ‘lost’ the opportunity to utilise the domain expertiseof the teacher: who, in this environment acted more as facilitator that master. Althoughaccess to other academic staff was available (ie they could engage some consultant time),they felt their interactions with the teacher were less rich. Students also raised issues aboutthe relevance of individual components of the unit (in particular non-problem-related itemssuch as those included in the portfolio), suggesting a need to examine alignment between theelements of a learning environment.The reflection based on the conclusions reached indicated that a hybrid approach mightaddress both teacher and student concerns.5.2.4 Cycle 3: studio learningThe goal of this cycle was to exploit the advantages of both the apprenticeship model andthe PBL environment developed. All the material learnt in ENG260 was conceptually new.Therefore an apprenticeship model that featured ‘fading’ as students gained competencyfailed to address this adequately. The PBL environment, on the other hand, did not allowfor a ‘master’ role: here the teacher acts as facilitator instead. The Studio Learning modeldeveloped in this cycle allowed for both approaches to be integrated. The teacher acts asexpert consultant, and can be ‘engaged’ by the students to provide modelling demonstrationand domain expertise. However, the students are required to direct their own learning: developingthe learning objectives to address each problem presented within the PBL environmentpreviously developed.This cycle required the development and then application of a Studio Learning model, based226