Complete thesis - Murdoch University

• the ‘correct solution’ to exercises undertaken. Student were comfortable with samplesolutions to their mathematics and engineering subjects being supplied by the lecturer.The idea of multiple acceptable solutions was a troubling one• removing themselves from their programming experience in order to define the problemas non-deterministically as possible. You can’t do that in Java almost became the classtheme.By the end of Phase II the the first spiral of the curriculum had been completed – the bulkof the discipline content had been covered, albeit some of it relatively broadly. Students hadcompleted the first (individual) assignment and received feedback. The rest of the semesterrevisited the content from a perspective of analysis and evaluation rather than application.So, for example, instead of just being able to produce an artefact (eg a Class diagram) theywere required to produce and then analyse it’s structure, elegance, critique alternative modelsetc. The context for this was the second assignment, in a group work environment. Theassignments, however, were always considered (by me, at least) as not the work of the classsession, which was still based on topics, reading and exercises in the web-based environment.At this point students were required to ‘take over’ to some extent – they would presentsample solutions to the class for discussion and critiquing. This addressed the Articulationand Reflection components of the Apprenticeship model, and assumed a Fading on the partof the teacher.It was from this point that the class became less cohesive in their participation within thelearning environment. Some students worked well and reasonably independently. With thesestudents (approximately 50% of the cohort), my role became one of supporting (Scaffolding)and then only intervening when requested/required (Fading). However, others were not ableto operate in this way: they continually attempted to revert to Modelling and Coaching.In effect, to use my brain rather than theirs. For them the Apprenticeship model see-sawedbetween Phases I and II and Phases III and IV – progression through the phases of the modelwas not smooth.This ambivalence about the learning environment was quite noticeable: while some studentsappreciated it as co-operative and interactive (class discussions are very useful, casual workshopenvironment), others felt it shifted the burden too heavily to their shoulders (far toomuch content to read; too much workload leading to no marks). Since the classroom provideda less formal environment for student-teacher interaction, students were open in voicing theiropinions and concerns. Where these were more general (ie not related to a specific student’sproblems), adhoc mini-focus group sessions were undertaken. While, in general these did notimpact on the intervention model, the issues were considered and timely feedback presented260