Page 88 - Linguistically Diverse Educational Contexts

LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS
communal (WE)164 in learners? I will seek answers to the questions that emerge during this research in future research projects.
While working on Unit 2, during the first task, students from both groups worked individually according to the instructions given earlier. However, in the next task they were divided into pairs (they met on previously created online channels) in order to evaluate their colleague's work and give suggestions to improve their creations. Students modified their work according to their colleagues' suggestions. Each student's work was visible at all times to the teacher, who could access each channel and see in real time what the students were writing and what they were working on, without disturbing them. The activities were in no way formulaic, requiring concentration, focus, and independence, but students were given precise instructions on what to focus on and worked individually. Each student dealt with a different topic during these classes. They each worked at their own level of language proficiency and could also use their second or third language. During the evaluation, students in both research groups rated these classes as more effective.
The research results obtained on the adequacy of the use of the Scenario-based Assessment of Learning Experiences questionnaire allow for its evaluation and will contribute to its reconstruction before it is used during the core research.
In answer to the first research question, Was the questionnaire selected correctly? We maintain that the idea of using a questionnaire to evaluate case-based learning experiences is valid. Nevertheless, the Claims Analysis itself was confusing for the students, as they had already described cases of effective and ineffective learning in the Scenario Narrative. Therefore, Claims Analysis should be removed from the questionnaire so that the results are more meaningful. In this study, the questionnaire was designed to provide us with information about the individual activities carried out during the class. However, it may have left too little freedom of expression for the students and therefore we obtained less data than if we had left space in the questionnaire for a short, spontaneous narrative about the learning process.
For the second research question, Were the questions in the questionnaire constructed in English in a way that students could understand and read?, the answer is yes. The questions in English did not present difficulties for the students. The fact that the students were able to evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching materials and the types of activities in the classes was something that most of the students participating in this study had not encountered before. We know this from conversations with students after the classes, when we discussed the purpose of these activities and the fact that they are supposed to translate directly into the quality of education.
Referring to the third research question, Was the research group appropriately selected?, we can conclude that the intention to select multilingual and multicultural student groups for the pilot study was appropriate. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that monolingual groups should also participate in the core research in order to get a full picture of working with the mentioned educational materials.
As for the fourth research question, How do recipients of educational material assess its appropriateness? Including maturity, disability, special needs, subject area, cultural context of teaching/learning, and language. (Learners' and teachers' perspectives – evaluation), it can be
164Czerepaniak-Walczak, 2016, wrote about higher education and the development of emancipatory competence.
73