Collaborative Academic Acculturation Processes in a Blended-Learning Approach
2. Case study: blended learning in academic writing courses
2.3 Discussion and recommendations
Overall, students’ evaluations indicated that they were positively disposed toward online, collaborative experiences that supplemented more traditional in-class in- struction. This is consistent with recent work by Salmon et al. (2015), who found that benefits of using social media within a MOOC included enhancing learning through the social and informal interaction with peers.
A number of studies have reported on HE students’ inadequate preparedness levels, mediocre academic performance, and significant drop out rate, particularly during the first year of study (cf., for instance, Brinkworth et al. 2009; Darlaston- Jones et al. 2003; Hellekjær 2009; Hyland 2009; Leki 2006; Van de Poel/Gasiorek 2012a; Van Dyk/Van de Poel/Van der Slik 2013). Clearly, these are issues that need addressing. Given both limited resources and heterogeneity of the student popula- tion, it is important to look for new routes to support academic acculturation. One way to facilitate students’ academic acculturation is supporting their academic literacy development through relevant assignments. Raising students’ awareness of academic literacy is critical for their academic success. Therefore, academic literacy support should foster students’ efficient and critical reading, support their reading and writing integration, and raise their metacognitive awareness –know what and know how– to help them better self-reflect and self-direct.
With these issues in mind, the results of this case study are encouraging, as they suggest that a blended learning approach, and specifically one involving online peer collaboration opportunities, may be a fruitful means to help students become more academically literate. However, students’ responses –and most notably, their different responses to different collaborative formats in the second year course–
indicate that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model or solution to online collabora- tion. Rather, different types and structures of online collaboration were preferred for accomplishing different goals.
In the first year course, the primary aims were to introduce writing in an aca- demic context and help socialize students into the norms and expectations of a HE environment. Here, the focus was on acculturation, and on laying foundations for improving students’ academic literacy. In this context, students responded positive- ly to an inclusive and unsupervised collaborative space where they could ‘safely’ ask their peers questions as they built basic, foundational knowledge and skills. Their responses indicated that they liked the forum as it was formatted, and that they
did not want additional supervision or direction (e.g., by a tutor) in this kind of environment. Although we did not see an immediate or clear association between forum evaluation and students’ marks, we contend that if the goal of the course is socialisation and general familiarity with the academic genre, students may still experience benefits beyond those measured in course performance.
In the second year course, in contrast, the primary aim was to build genre- specific academic writing skills. Here, the focus was on developing working knowl- edge of discrete components of academic writing (such as argumentation, features of academic discourse, academic grammar and lexicon, the use of sources). In this context, students seemed to like collaboration in small groups better than collaboration involving the entire class, presumably because it was a better fit for completing more specific, focused activities. Active participation in these small groups was also more tightly linked to course performance than was collabora- tion in the Scriboratory (i.e., forum involving the entire class). The findings thus highlight that it is important to line up the configuration and use of blended and online tools with the different goals and needs, since students seem to respond better to formats that are more clearly aligned with the course goals. This finding indeed suggests that we cannot just say ‘it’s collaborative, so it’s great!’, but need to in fact be more thoughtful about the developing curriculum and syllabus (as discussed in Colpaert/Gijsen (this volume)).
Because of the way in which the assignments were structured, students not only actively engaged in internalising the materials they were also stimulated to col- laboratively define their applicability and use, thus functioning as ‘peer-teachers’
in interaction with each other. Moreover, they also engaged in peer review in the closed Facebook group, where the tasks required collaboration. Thus, learners collaborated across the boundaries of the traditional classroom engaging with new media in a bottom-up approach enlarging their traditional working space to encompass the virtual world.
There are, of course, limitations to both online collaboration and blended learning approaches more generally that should be acknowledged. First, there is a skill-based threshold for engagement: both lecturers and learners have to be (or become) proficient and comfortable working in an online environment for them to be able to take advantage of the opportunities these course components offer. Second, students need to learn and adapt to an additional set of norms and practices –those of relating to and learning from each other through social media (which is often more informal than a traditional classroom). Finally, and critically, students have to be willing to engage with each other. In the second year student
group, for instance, learners felt somewhat more reluctant towards engaging in a large group as opposed to smaller and more focused groups.
A key question to consider as we look ahead is how students are perceived and treated by HE. Traditionally, learners have been treated as passive recipients of knowledge that is curated and delivered by an ‘expert’ instructor. Blended (and au- tonomous) learning approaches alter this treatment, as they invite, and ultimately require, students to take charge of their own learning process. This study suggests that students are responding positively to this change. In this way, the approach seems to have succeeded in creating an environment suitable for and encouraging collaborative learning in a strong community. Moreover, students claim to have reached their self-defined learning goals, thus coming closer to being academically acculturated.
In sum, this case study highlights the positive potential for a blended learning approach in fostering students’ skills and knowledge related to academic literacy.
However, it also cautions that as course designers we need to be thoughtful and specific about the nature of what we design. Collaborative online learning is not perfect in itself and some design will fulfil particular needs better than others and thus will better contribute to solving particular challenges. In the end, thoughtful and informed design will support students in becoming autonomous lifelong learn- ers and identify their own academic, social, vocational and personal challenges.
Junge Menschen, die ein Studium aufnehmen, empfinden den Anpassungsprozess an universitäre Lern-und Kommunikationsprozesse (academic acculturation) oft als Heraus- forderung (Darlaston-Jones et al. 2003; Leki 2006; Brinkworth et al. 2009). Diese Erfahrung wird von Studierenden einer Fremdsprache als besonders herausfordernd wahrgenommen, da von ihnen eine weitestgehende Kommunikation in der Fremdsprache verlangt wird.
Die Ergebnisse universitärer Eignungsprüfungen sowie die Daten gezielter Fragebogen haben gezeigt, dass Hauptfachstudierende einer Fremdsprache im ersten Semester sich bezüglich ihrer akademischen Fähigkeiten und Bereitschaft überschätzen (vgl. Van Dyk/
Van de Poel/Van der Slik 2013 für den südafrikanischen Kontext; Van Dyk/Van de Poel/
Van der Slik i. Vorb. für Flandern).
Das Problem scheint vor allem auf ein Kommunikationsdefizit und eine nicht ausre- ichende Information der Studierenden bezüglich der Anforderungen zurück zu führen zu sein (vgl. De Geest 2012; Van de Poel/Gasiorek 2012).
Dem konstruktivistischen Lernansatz zufolge sind Lerner aktiv an der Ausgestaltung ihrer eigenen Lernprozesse beteiligt, wozu sie jedoch nicht immer von Beginn an be- reit sind. Um Lerner in der Übernahme von Verantwortung für ihr eigenes Lernen zu unterstützen, ist eine kontinuierliche Bewusstmachung ihres Einflusses auf ihre eigenen Lernprozesse erforderlich. Vor diesem Hintergrund bietet die Interaktion in der Zweit- und/oder Fremdsprache, sowohl online als auch persönlich, Lernern die Möglichkeit,
Sprachprobleme in Zusammenarbeit mit anderen zu lösen, sich gegenseitig in ihren indi- viduellen Lernprozessen zu unterstützen und neues Wissen zu schaffen (vgl. Donato 1994;
Ohta/Foster 2005; Swain, 2000).
Dieser Beitrag beschreibt, wie Erst-und Zweitsemesterstudierende mit Englisch als Hauptfach in einem zwölf-wöchigen Seminar zum wissenschaftlichen Schreiben durch gemeinschaftlich zu bearbeitende Online-Aufgaben dazu angeregt wurden, sich mit dem spezifischen akademischen Diskurs ihres Fachs auseinanderzusetzen. Durch die Kombina- tion von Präsens-und Online-Elementen hatten Lerner die Gelegenheit, Schreibaufgaben gemeinsam zu bearbeiten. Zusätzlich wurde von ihnen verlangt, die Anwendbarkeit von Materialien zu definieren und fungierten so als peer-teachers. Durch Einbeziehung von virtuellen Lernorten fand Lernen somit auch außerhalb des Klassenzimmers statt.
Die erhobenen Daten zeigen, dass Studierende dies im Allgemeinen als positiv emp- fanden, aber auch, dass sie, je nach Inhalt und Aufgabenstellung, unterschiedliche Ansätze und Formen des kollaborativen Lernens bevorzugten. Des Weiteren wurde das gemein- same Lernen von den Studierenden als authentisch empfunden. Dies und ihr Empfin- den, den Leistungsanforderungen gerecht zu werden, trug zu einem besseren Empfinden bezüglich ihres Akkulturationsprozesses (academic acculturation) bei.