1 INDIVIDUAL STATEMENT – EXEMPLAR 1 1. Giving examples from the Project, reflect on how your ways of thinking and working are contributing to the Project in comparison to other ways of thinking. This should include a critical reflection of the strengths and limitations of your approach relative to others. (Word count: 500) Legitimation Code Theory describes how an individual’s basis of achievement can be classified into a specialisation code (Maton & Chen 2019). By examining my educational background, it is evident that my way of thinking primarily fits into the “knowledge code” (Maton & Chen 2019, p. 4). In my study of science, great emphasis is placed on understanding specialist genetics theories in lectures and then mastering the practical application of this through following well-established procedures in labs. Similarly, my law subjects prioritise the acquisition of knowledge of cases and statutes in order to apply this to novel fact scenarios. Since no single code can be relied upon to address a complex problem (Maton & Chen 2019), different ways of thinking are needed for various aspects of the Project. My “knowledge code” enabled me to define our task - to work collaboratively to identify a waste problem within City of Sydney offices. This was beneficial as I was able to communicate my understanding of the Project’s scope to our group. Whilst a “knowledge code” has the potential to lead to a reductive picture of the object of study (Maton & Chen 2019), this Project encourages us to focus on one particular waste aspect, so fortunately this wasn’t an issue. However, a limitation of my way of thinking was reflected in the brainstorming process, where group members who identified with the “knower code” (Maton & Chen 2019, p. 4) were more adept at thinking creatively. They drew upon personal ways of doing things, and demonstrated that we didn’t necessarily have to start with the problem itself. For example, group member D drew upon his experiences in a previous group project to suggest Tupperware containers as a potential ‘strategy’ to reduce plastic waste. Additionally, my focus on epistemic relations enabled me to contribute to the research of our complex problem. Building upon the Tupperware idea, I studied existing approaches to addressing plastic waste in offices during lunch hours. This was advantageous as it allowed us to identify a suitable approach early on - researching the practices of office workers in relation to their consumption of takeaway lunches. However, I found that my “knowledge code” approach was limited in depth, as group members possessing the “knower code” were better able to consider and pursue emerging issues. For example, group member A identified that the Tupperware idea could also minimise food wastage, expanding the focus of our problem. My “knowledge code” also manifested in my contribution to the strongly structured design of our group plan. In the approaches section, I established a clear outline of our “mixed methods approach” that other group members could then contribute to. As well, my “knowledge code” enabled me to accept criticisms of ideas from other group members without taking them personally. However, one weakness of my way of thinking was evident in the marker feedback for our group plan, where certain “methods” we referred to, such as the “Toolbox approach”, didn’t have the required depth. By drawing upon social relations within “knower codes”, I could have more clearly shown what these methods entailed and how they would apply to the relationships between group members. 2 2. What potential or actual problems are arising from working on the Project with collaborators whose ways of thinking are similar or different to your own? What strategies are you using to avoid or resolve those problems? (Word count: 493) The potential for problems arising from the Project is largely due to an unawareness of the ways of thinking of other group members, as well as which parts of the Project suit particular kinds of thinking. Firstly, there is the potential for problems to arise due to code matches. Four of our group members identify most strongly with the “knowledge code”. This could result in a more narrow-minded perspective, leading to misinterpretation of Project requirements. This issue arose in our group plan in the “approaches” section, where the majority of us initially thought we were expected to discuss the implementation part of our strategy. Fortunately, we received feedback from our Project Supervisor, and with clear communication and review we were able to redirect our focus. An awareness of this possibility of a limited perspective will also aid us in future assessments. Further, even for those who belong to the same codes, approaches to the complex problem may still differ, leading to potential problems. For example, I identify with a situational knowledge code (The LCT Centre for Knowledge-Building 2019). Therefore, in approaching our complex problem, I first determined the focus of our Project, and then decided on a certain approach to suit this. However, this had the potential to differ from a group member who may use a particular approach whatever the focus – a doctrinal knowledge code (The LCT Centre for Knowledge-Building 2019). Despite this issue not arising, a successful strategy would be to discuss these two approaches, and consider whether they could be integrated. Additionally, problems may also arise due to code clashes (Maton & Chen 2019). Throughout the research process, we understood it was vital to have a method of completing tasks on time. Since I identify most with the knowledge code, I prefer a clear timeline. However, other group members who form part of the knower code, understandably prefer to work at their own pace. Accordingly, for our Group Plan we devised a strategy centred around an integrated approach. We created a flexible and broad timeline that wasn’t too specific, but ensured that each stage was completed on time to allow us to progress to the next phase. We also agreed on a group member from the “knowledge code” to oversee our progress. Another potential problem relates to the differing writing styles of each group member due to various ways of thinking, which may have resulted in an incoherent Group Plan. Group members possessing the “knowledge code” preferred to use different methods in collating data to those part of the “knower code”, and presented those findings in various ways. To address this, we adopted an integrated approaches strategy. Our group agreed upon the overall structure and main information we wanted to include in each section. We then deconstructed the type of thinking that was required for each section, allocated sections to members based on their strengths to begin research, and reconvened before beginning the writing process. We also allocated a member from the “knower code” to be our editor and ensure the cohesiveness of our final draft. 3 3. To what extent is your group achieving interdisciplinary learning? You may wish to discuss barriers your team identified and/or experienced as well as strategies for overcoming these and your learning from this process. (Word count: 499) To a great extent, our group has achieved interdisciplinary learning, but there is no doubt there is scope to further this. Interdisciplinary learning involves the integration of knowledge from various disciplines, to address complex and “real-world” problems (Ashby & Exter 2019, p. 202). There are various types of interdisciplinary learning programs (Ashby & Exter 2019). Initially, our group illustrated multi-disciplinary learning, which refers to the incorporation of many disciplines when approaching a project, without the complete integration of those disciplines (Ashby & Exter 2019). However, we strive for transdisciplinarity, which involves the synthesis of disciplines and the creation of “shared conceptual frameworks” to approach a certain problem, transcending specific fields (Ashby & Exter 2019, p. 203). The considerable extent to which we have achieved this is evident in an examination of the three criteria developed by Boix Mansilla and Duraisingh (2007) (Ashby & Exter 2019, p. 205). Firstly, each member of our group has illustrated a “strong foundation or grounding in a discipline” (Ashby & Exter 2019), relating to science, art, business, law or a combination. This was evident in our Week 2 discussion board task, where we each critically engaged with a chosen article from our disciplines which was relevant to the brief. This was a necessary first step to understand how our separate disciplines could support the purpose of our project, before considering how they could be integrated. To develop our appreciation of disciplinary perspectives, reflection tasks helped us identify insights and limitations within both our own and others’ disciplines. The team reflection activity in week 3 encouraged me to consider how my specialisation code was influenced by both science and law. The response by group member A to my post, who studies politics and international relations, allowed both of us to consider differences and similarities between our disciplines in relation to the Project. Secondly, in examining the extent of our interdisciplinary learning, our group has displayed “advancement through integrating multiple disciplinary lenses” (Ashby & Exter 2019), especially in our Group Plan. A common barrier to this is that defining a problem can often be framed as a disciplinary process which makes it difficult to incorporate more than one discipline (Ashby & Exter 2019). To overcome this, we considered the problem from CitySwitch’s point of view, embracing a “non-disciplinary perspective” (Ashby & Exter 2019). In doing so, we were able to successfully incorporate techniques from many different disciplines in our Group Plan, including a SWOT analysis from group member D, strict methodology from group member B and a reliance on past experiences from group member A. Thirdly, our group has demonstrated “a critical awareness as to how to synthesise disciplinary knowledge” (Ashby & Exter 2019). This manifested in group meetings following the submission of our Group Plan. By critically analysing how we had implemented more of a “multi-disciplinary” as opposed to “transdisciplinary” approach in this specific task, we displayed a “metadisciplinary understanding” of our work. We identified reasons that contributed to this, including a desire for simplicity, lack of thorough planning and the challenges associated with communicating solely online due to covid-19. Thus, early planning and improved communication will fuse our research into one organising theme in the future and enhance the “interdisciplinary framing” of our waste problem as we move towards transdisciplinarity. 4 References Ashby, I & Exter, M 2019, ‘Designing for Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education: Considerations for Instructional Designers’, TechTrends, vol. 63, pp. 202-208. Maton, K & Chen, R 2019, ‘Specialization from Legitimation Code Theory: How the basis of achievement shapes student success’ in Martin, JR, Maton, K, & Doran, YJ. (ed.) Accessing Academic Discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory, Routledge, London. The LCT Centre for Knowledge-Building, 2019, ICPU1062-001 Industry and Community Project Units Student pack ‘Mapping ways of thinking’, student pack pdf, viewed 20 April 2020, https://canvas.sydney.edu.au/courses/22490/files/9400558?module_item_id=740075 Feedback Really well written and concise, with thoughtful reflections and insights on the diversity in your team and the strengths and limitations of individual ways of thinking. Some further explanation of 'knower' code would help to operationalise this concept. Strong reflective writing with targeted engagement with LCT (though missing citation/expansion of 'code match' concept). Demonstrates high level comprehension of key concepts in the reading and the growth of your understanding of how the team is/can aspire to different forms of interdisciplinary learning and output. This should really help to frame an analytical and high- level discussion in your group report. Targeted engagement with literature and good referencing practices. A couple of missed opportunities to cite/engage readings but generally really strong. Well done.