/usr/space » research

Workshop on facilitation techniques using the Conversational Framework

Michael Rowe — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:41:01 +0000

How do we get students to think more deeply about learning in an academic context?

I’m giving a workshop later today. The idea is that we’ll get all of the facilitators who’ll be working on the module we’re designing (and which I’m evaluating for my PhD) and help them get a grip on the approach to facilitation that we’d like them to use. The objective of the workshop is to help them get an understanding of the conceptual basis for facilitation in this module. We’re going to use Laurillard’s “Conversational Framework” as a structure to guide how the facilitators should try and engage with their groups, both in the classroom and in the clinical context. The following notes have been taken from Laurillard’s “Rethinking University Teaching“.

Learning needs to be situated within a context and we can’t separate the knowledge to be learned from the context in which it has to be applied. Conceptual knowledge is not an abstract, intangible thing. It is a tool that can be used as part of an authentic learning activity. There is a unity between the problem, context and solution when the problem is experienced, that is absent when an answer is merely given.

Teaching is essentially an activity that tries to help students change the way the see the world by interpreting the insights of others.

“Everyday learning” = a result of our experiences in the world i.e. we develop an implicit awareness of gravity by falling
“Academic learning” = a result of our reflections on others’ descriptions of the world i.e. we develop an understanding of a theory of gravity by reading about experiments conducted by other people

Academic learning is different to everyday learning in the sense that it is the student learning through interpreting the symbols (i.e. language, images, diagrams) of someone else’s view of the world

The knowledge that students bring with them will impact on how they integrate the new knowledge that they learn. Remember the ZPD and how the MKO guides the student to higher cognitive levels by building on what they already know.

It makes no sense to correct a faulty procedure without also correcting the faulty conceptualisation that supported it (knowledge is situated in action, and action manifests knowledge). Correcting fundamental misconceptions automatically corrects all of the faulty procedures associated with it. Correcting the procedure corrects only one way of doing it incorrectly. This is one problem with merely demonstrating a technique. The student is forced to conceive a rationale for the technique, which may be incorrect. By taking them through an experience of solving a problem, the rationale for the technique is implicitly tied to its performance.

Before we can challenge the students’ fundamental misconceptions, we need to know what those misconceptions are. Again, this links back to the ZPD. Without knowing where the student is, we cannot help them get to where they want to be.

Researching the learning process (which is essentially what a facilitator is…a dynamic researcher into student learning) should include an observation of student performance on a task e.g. worked problems or written explanations, with a retrospective interview of the student looking back at the task and describing how they experienced it. The interviewer uses the task to provide cues to the student.

The learning process includes 5 interdependent aspects:

Apprehending structure. Students often fail to apprehend the structure of a discourse (e.g. a body of text), and there is often meaning that is implicit in structure (e.g. headings, paragraphs, etc.). When students take a surface approach to studying a text they lose the structure of the arguments and end with a series of statements that are not related to each other. When they take a deep approach they preserve the structure was well as the original meaning.
Integrating parts. Students must learn how to interpret the discipline-specific representations if they are to make sense of them. The way that information is presented can lend itself to deep or surface approaches, as well as create potential “distractors” for the student. The idea is not to ensure that data representation is “easy” for the student to interpret but rather to prepare the student to handle the different representations. Complex scenarios provide opportunities to determine students’ ability to interpret the representations. For example, consider how students are confused when different clinicians advocate different management approaches for the same patient. The student who only comprehends the superficial structure of the interaction is stuck because they cannot perceive that interpretations can be different.
Acting on the world. Learning is an activity (classroom-based problem-solving), an imitation of practice (practical sessions in the classroom), or actual practice (seeing patients). The student must engage with the world (i.e. solving problems in the classroom, or treating patients) by performing an action that is based on their understanding of how the world works.
Using feedback. As we learn about the world by acting on it, we receive direct feedback and adjust the action in relation to the feedback. The feedback must be perceived as useful to the student (i.e. it must be meaningful). It must be given immediately (or soon) after the students’ action in order for the student to relate the feedback to the action. Helpful feedback also provides the student with specific information on how to adapt their performance.
Reflecting on goals. Reflection is about establishing conceptual links between the action, feedback, and integration of the two as they relate to the achievement of a goal (e.g. solving a problem). Students often interpret goals as being something required by the teacher and go through the steps necessary to reproduce an outcome, with little intention of understanding the task or the goal (i.e. the tasks are a series of hoops that they have to jump through). The same task is therefore perceived differently by the students and teacher, and therefore operationalised in different ways. For many students, what it means to achieve the objective / goal is different to what the teacher is trying to do.

Using the above steps, we can see how learning something deeply is complex and difficult to facilitate. In short, the facilitator should try to conduct an interactive dialogue that supports the learning process. The following points describe the components of a teacher-student dialogue that promotes deep learning of a topic.

Apprehending structure

Students role: look for structure, discern topic goal (if the goal isn’t explicitly identified, the student lacks the structure to guide their thinking), relate goal to structure of discourse
Facilitators role: explain phenomena, clarify structure, negotiate topic goal, ask about internal relations (explain phenomena, make predictions, compare analogous situations)

Interpreting forms of representation

Students role: model events / systems in terms of forms of representation, interpret forms of representation to model systems / events
Facilitators role: set mapping tasks between forms of representation and systems / events, relate forms of representation to students’ view

Acting on descriptions

Students role: derive implications, solve problems, and test hypotheses to produce descriptions
Facilitators role: elicit descriptions, compare descriptions, highlight inconsistencies

Using feedback

Students role: link teachers redescription to relation between action and goal, to produce new action on description (student gives a description of something, teacher responds with a different viewpoint that demonstrates inconsistency, student must therefore reframe / describe it again)
Facilitators role: provide redescription, elicit new description, support linking process

Reflecting on goal-action-feedback cycle

Students role: engage with goal, relate to actions and feedback (this is why the goal of the dialogue must be explicit, to allow students to reflect its relationship to the action / description and feedback)
Facilitators role: prompt reflection, support reflection on goal-action-feedback cycle

There should be a continuing, iterative dialogue between teacher and student, that reveals both parties conceptions and differences between the conceptions, which then determines the focus for continuing dialogue. However, it’s not just the process of conducting the dialogue that matters but HOW it is conducted e.g there must be an opportunity for the student to interpret forms of representation other than language.

A teaching strategy should be:

Discursive - the teachers and students conceptions should be continually accessible to each other; teacher and student must agree on the learning goals for the topic; the teacher must provide an environment for the discussion, within which the student can generate and receive feedback on descriptions appropriate to the topic goal; the teachers description must be meaningful to the student
Adaptive - the relationship between the teacher’s and student’s conceptions must serve as the focus for the continuing dialogue; it is the student’s responsibility to use the feedback from their work on the task and relate it to their conception
Interactive - the teacher must provide an environment in which the student can act on, generate and receive intrinsic feedback on actions appropriate to the task goal; the student must act to achieve the task goal; the teacher must provide meaningful feedback on their actions that relates to the nature of the task goal
Reflective - the teacher must support the process in which students link the feedback on their actions to the topic goal for every level of description within the topic structure; the student must reflect on the task goal, their action on it, and the intrinsic feedback they receive, and link this to their description of their conception to the topic goal

Challenging students’ conceptual relationships in clinical education

Michael Rowe — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:26:18 +0000

I just wanted to share a thought while preparing our case notes for the Applied Physiotherapy module we’re developing. One of the designers made a note of the “guideline answers” for facilitators to some of the questions that we might use to trigger students’ thinking. I wrote the following as a comment and didn’t want to lose it when the document is finalised, so I’m putting it here.

“I think we should make sure that, in addition to the ‘answers’, we should identify the main concepts we want students to understand. Remember that we’re using our paper patient (i.e. the case) as a framework for students to learn about concepts. Then, they apply those concepts in the real world to patients. They reflect on those real-world interactions and identify dissonance between their experienced reality (the patient contact) and their abstract conceptions of reality (how they originally conceived of the patient contact). After the patient contact, they feed back to their small groups and facilitators, who together help students create new relationships between concepts. So, in short, the clinical concepts are learned initially through the paper patient, tested in the real world with an actual patient, discussed online (maybe) and then brought back to the classroom for further reflection and refinement. The next week they are exposed to new concepts that build on their previous experiences, and then they get to test those abstractions in the real world again.”

I’m trying to take an intentional approach to using Laurillard’s conception of academic learning that I’m exploring in “Rethinking University Teaching”

From “designing teaching” to “evaluating learning”

Michael Rowe — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:01:22 +0000

Later this month we’ll be implementing a blended approach to teaching and learning in one module in our physiotherapy department. This was to form the main part of my research project, looking at the use of technology enhanced teaching and learning in clinical education. The idea was that I’d look at the process of developing and implementing a blended teaching strategy that integrated an online component, and which would be based on a series of smaller research projects I’ve been working on.

I was quite happy with this until I had a conversation with a colleague, who asked how I planned on determining whether or not the new teaching strategy had actually worked. This threw me a little bit. I thought that I had it figured out…do small research projects to develop understanding of the students and the teaching / learning environment, use those results to inform the development of an intervention, implement the intervention and evaluate the process. Simple, right?

Then why haven’t I been able to shake the feeling that something was missing? I thought that I’d use a combination of outputs or “products of learning” (e.g. student reflective diaries, concept mapping assignments, semi-structured interviews, test results, focus groups, etc.) to evaluate my process and make a recommendation about whether others should consider taking a blended approach to clinical education. I’ve since begun to wonder if that method goes far enough in making a contribution to the field, and if there isn’t something more that I should be doing (my supervisor is convinced that I’ve got enough without having to change my plan at this late stage, and she may be right).

However, when I finally got around to reading Laurillard’s “Rethinking University Teaching”, I was quite taken with her suggested approach. It’s been quite an eye opener, not only in terms of articulating some of the problems that I see in clinical practice with our students, but also helping me to realize the difference between designing teaching activities (which is what I’ve been concentrating on), and evaluating learning (which I’ve ignored because this is hard to do). I also realized that, contrary to a good scientific approach, I didn’t have a working hypothesis, and was essentially just going to describe something without any idea of what would happen. Incidentally, there’s nothing wrong with descriptive research to evaluate a process, but if I can’t also describe the change in learning, isn’t that limiting the study?

I’m now wondering if, in addition to what I’d already planned, I need to conduct interviews with students using the phenomenological approach suggested by Laurillard i.e. the Conversational Framework. I don’t yet have a great understanding of it but I’m starting to see how merely aligning a curriculum can’t in itself make any assertions about changes in student learning. I need to be able to say that a blended approach does / does not appear to fundamentally change how students’ construct meaning and in order to do so I’m thinking of doing the following:

Interview 2nd year and 3rd students at the very beginning of the module (January, 2012), before they’ve been introduced to case-based learning. My hypothesis is that they’ll display quite superficial mental constructs in terms of their clinical problem-solving ability as neither group has had much experience with patient contact
Interview both groups again in 6 months and evaluate whether or not there constructs have changed. At this point, the 2nd years will have been through 6 months of a blended approach, while the 3rd years will have had one full term of clinical contact with patients. My hypothesis is that the 2nd years will be better able to reason their way through problems, even though the 3rd years will have had more time on clinical rotation

I hope that this will allow me to make a stronger statement about the impact of a blended approach to teaching and learning in clinical education, and to be able to demonstrate that it fundamentally changes students constructs from superficial to deep understanding. I’m just not sure if the Conversational Framework is the most appropriate model to evaluate students’ problem-solving ability, as it was initially designed to evaluate multimedia tools.

Developing research and scholarship in our department

Michael Rowe — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:41:40 +0000

I often speak to colleagues who seem surprised when I describe our departmental structure to develop capacity among our staff members. I thought I’d make a few notes here as an example of what I see as a system that works quite well(for us anyway).

My university has an Institutional Operational Plan (IOP), which includes a 5 year strategy to develop capacity in both research and teaching & learning (T&L). This implementation plan is mirrored at both faculty and departmental levels. The idea is to have departmental versions of the university’s vision, and to strive to achieve those goals within set periods of time.

There are 2 main “legs” of the IOP, namely T&L and research. Both of these have their own 5 year implementation plans that are again mirrored at faculty and departmental levels, with each plan split into several key areas. For example, the T&L plan in my department has 9 key areas, which include (the following points are summarised):

Enhance and promote the status of T&L within the department
Develop and promote the scholarship of T&L
Infuse technology into T&L
Develop an infrastructure for T&L
Embed graduate attributes into the programme

Each of these key areas is split into:

Actions that required to develop the area / achieve the objective
Performance measures to evaluate progress towards the goal
Expected outcomes i.e. how do we think this will make things better?
People and resources required
Timeframes

We realised almost immediately that without someone to drive the implementation plan, it was just a collection of words on paper. So we appointed a T&L co-ordinator in our department who uses the T&L implementation plan to set yearly objectives and to evaluate our progress towards achieving them. The more complex areas are divided into sections and we evaluate each section over time. We know that we can’t do everything at once. For example, one of our objectives was to incorporate peer review of teaching practices into our T&L portfolios (developing a T&L portfolio was another objective). We began by developing a rubric that worked for us, and then committing to being reviewed once, and conducting one review. Having been through that process, peer review is now part of our T&L practices.

We have a similar structure for the research component. The departmental plan mirrors the institutional plan, and there is a policy and guiding framework, all driven by the research co-ordinator within the department. We re-visit each of our implementation plans at the end of every year at our annual planning meeting to evaluate our progress. We’re held accountable for the goals we set as a department, as well as individuals, and for the time we were given to achieve those goals.

With heavy teaching and supervision loads (we have 8 permanent staff members and 4 contractors with a student population of about 240 undergraduates and about 30 postgraduates), it is challenging to see the implementation plans as living documents that need to be embedded in our practice. In order to move forward, we need a very supportive environment in which no single person has too large a burden to bear. We divide work up equally (well, as equally as possible), sharing our teaching, supervision and research loads. There is no favouritism and our professors are as involved in the undergraduate curriculum development as we are.

In addition, we provide substantial support to novice teachers and researchers. For example, when I’m working on an article I send it to at least 2 of my colleagues for critical review, preferably colleagues with a mix of research and writing experience. I get to receive feedback that will help me strengthen my work, but it also gives novice authors the opportunity to learn about the review process. This support extends to contract staff, no matter how recently they’ve been appointed.

I recently spoke to a colleague who only got a supervisor after more than 1 year as a PhD student. She’s almost 3 years into the programme and still hasn’t been able to submit a proposal. It’s not that she’s a slacker…she’s been let down by a broken system. Our postgraduate applicants must submit a 5 page concept paper, which is discussed and reviewed. If the idea seems feasible, the student is accepted and immediately assigned a supervisor. There is an expectation that the proposal will be submitted and accepted 1 year after admission to the programme.

The point of this post wasn’t to suggest that we’re better than others. I just thought it might be useful to share how we do things, especially when I often come across colleagues who have very different approaches. If you have a different way of developing staff members that works for you, please share it in the comments.

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2011-12-05

Michael Rowe — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 04:22:00 +0000

@dgachago17 it was a wonderful week, i learned so much from everyone I spoke to, must chat about collab project #
@LenSteenkamp Staying at the Beach Hotel, SAA paying for everything, so thats not too bad. Was just a disappointing end #
Flight home canceled, spending another night in PE. A bit pissed off with #SAA for stuffing up what had been a good week at #heltasa11 #
#pencilchat on Twitter has been a lot of fun. Thank you everyone for making the point in a way that I can only describe as delightful #
RT @timbuckteeth What if the students break them? They won’t be able to write! #pencilchat #
RT @philipgreen #pencilchat Give me a pencil and a place to stand, and I could move the world #
RT @timbuckteeth Pencils will dumb down education. Keep the oral traditions alive! #pencilchat #
#pencilchat Just bought an accessory to look flash in meetings – a pencil grip – boss is asking where I got it #
RT @sangsterphil: Students at our school spend more time customising their pencils than writing with them #pencilchat #
RT @GuyJudge: @timbuckteeth Pencils criticized in plagiarism study. They make it too easy to copy. #pencilchat #
RT @GuyJudge: Don’t press down too hard when you use a pencil as you may leave an imprint that other people can read #pencilchat #
RT @johnmayo: I sure hope someone is going to use all these #pencilchat tweets in a presentation at some stage What about copyright? All CC? #
RT @GrahamBM: We have found that 1:3 pencil sharing has improved learner collaboration #pencilchat #
@timbuckteeth Poets among early pencil adopters. Now even builders use them. #pencilchat #
RT @HeidiSiwak: Pencils: anywhere, anyone, anytime on anything writing! The future is now! #pencilchat #
RT @briankotts: There is no evidence that the pencil makes learning faster, easier or better. #pencilchat #
RT @aangeli: RT @dughall: 2B or not 2B? That is the question. #pencilchat #
RT @noblerod: #pencilchat privacy concerns arise when students discovered using pencils to record friend’s antics during lunch #
@sandynay sorry, http://t.co/rVfBYAee #
RT @heidisiwak: RT @mgraffin: Check out the #pencilchat trend map http://t.co/VKvzjHEE… #
RT @wholeboxndice: RT @delta_dc: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give him a pencil and he can draw a fish. #pencilchat #
#pencilchat is what Twitter was invented for #
RT @johntspencer: Violent games do not lead to violent people. I played hang man numerous times and I’ve never hung anyone. #pencilchat #
RT @edutechhannah: I’ve doubled my productivity by sharpening both ends #pencilchat #
RT @ekendriss: RT @pammoran: Can pencil immigrants teach pencil natives? #pencilchat #
RT @ekendriss: RT @bhsprincipal: Pencils are always broken. They never work when I need them. #pencilchat #
RT @raventech: Anyone know if the added weight of an external eraser slows down todays graphite pencils? Concerned re. mobility #pencilchat #
RT @ronhoutman: @timbuckteeth If you didn’t grow up with pencils, then you will find them too hard to learn how to use. #pencilchat #
RT @webenglishteach: If we start using pencils, when will the kids learn keyboarding or the value of different fonts? #pencilchat #
RT @erinneo: refuse to use pencils in my classroom until manufacturers figure out a way 2 limit what [they] can write with them #pencilchat #
RT @vghathaway: RT @timstirrup: have you seen the things kids write about each other using pencils? this just HAS to stop! #pencilchat #
RT @heidisiwak: My school is adopting pencils but going to keep them in 1 room, each class allowed 40 minutes a week to use them #pencilchat #
RT @edutechhannah: Just spotted a student ‘doodling’ with one in class. Surely this will just become another distraction? #pencilchat #
RT @rebeccaradics: RT @Justgosailing: We are preparing students for pencils that have not yet been made. #shifthappens #pencilchat #
RT @tmartinowen: Time to drop pencils out of helicopters on all villages -one pencil per child #pencilchat #
RT @timbuckteeth: I’m resisting pencils at present. If I adopt them, I’ll have to change the way I teach. #pencilchat #
RT @heidisiwak: RT @markuos: #pencilchat Apparently you can use one ‘pencil dock’ at the front of the class to keep 30 pencils updated #
RT @dgree132: #pencilchat I’m worried about my son, he sits writing or drawing by himself for long periods of time. I think he’s addicted. #
RT @johnmayo: Data recovery for erased data with a pencil is very difficult #pencildata #
Apple marketing appeals to emotion, not features. That’s why everyone loves them. You need to switch off your heart to be immune #heltasa11 #
I hate it when marketers (esp. from #Apple push something without context i.e. iPad = good for education with no validation #heltasa11 #
@ronaldarendse To be fair, it’s only 1 person from #UCT who isn’t keen on sharing. I’m sure it’s not an institutional policy to censor #
This “panel discussion” is actually a series of short presentations by 5 people. There’s no discussion happening? #heltasa11 #
@ronaldarendse Isn’t the point of coming to a conference to share practices so that we can all learn? What’s going on at #UCT #heltasa11 #
@ronaldarendse @LenSteenkamp So, attendance = success. Students say they attend. Therefore intervention = success? Mmm, seems shaky to me #
@ronaldarendse What are you talking about, I’m in a great mood #
@ronaldarendse Maybe the student attendance figures were a minor component of the study. Was attendance relevant for the conclusions drawn? #
@ronaldarendse Sorry, let me help you…sarcasm = “The use of irony to mock or convey contempt” #
So far the panel discussion at #heltasa11 has been about (insecure) researchers trying to justify what they do. Am I missing something? #
@ronaldarendse There’s nothing wrong with basing conclusions on self-report. Students always tell me they “learn a lot” #heltasa11 #
@ronaldarendse Are you saying that the UCT presenter isn’t sharing? Sounds about right #heltasa11 #
@ronaldarendse Always sets off alarm bells when someone tells me that I’m about to be amazed with something I’ve never heard before #
@ronaldarendse Never mind, it was meant for the moment, which you clearly missed #
@ronaldarendse How can you not like this guy? #
Check out http://t.co/zv6lAUQx: interesting way for students to present information in an online poster. Uses flash tho & no collaboration #
This looks like a useful tool for student collections of content around a topic? http://t.co/qwUTDE9B #
RT @alexisangelus: @LenSteenkamp Congratulations on ur 2011 Award in National Excellence in Teaching & Learning!!! Bravo! Bravo! #HELTASA11 #
RT @ronaldarendse: Prof Delia Marshall of the Faculty of Science wins the teaching and learning excellence award! #HELTASA11 #ProudlyUdubs #
RT @jackiesredpath: Big shout out to @LenSteenkamp! Congrats on winning the award! From Dine and the NWU ladies #HELTASA11 #
Daily Papert: should encourage a deeper understanding of technology, beyond searching for information and communication http://t.co/rw7R1WFo #
Congratulations to Prof Delia Marshal from #UWC on her T&L award at #heltasa11 #
@carinavr No problem, glad to know that someone else finds them a little bit useful #
@dgachago17 Cool, will stick with the Laurillard book for now, otherwise I’ll just end up with 20 that I never read #
@dgachago17 Any suggestions? Too much to browse, need to have specific things to look for #
@dgachago17 Just got the book you mentioned, thanks for pointing it out. Will have a look at it later #
Excellent presentation by @dgachago17 on the disruptive nature of emerging technologies #heltasa11 #
@LenSteenkamp not at all, it’s just semantics #
@LenSteenkamp good point, but then you’re not replacing an LMS with G+, you’re talking about using Google as a platform #
@dgachago17 They’re not equivalent & therefore 1 can’t replace the other. U can’t use G+ for admin, & an LMS has little to do with learning #
@ronaldarendse Not saying that’s my opinion, but why would they say anything different? We need to decide if it’s a viable / useful tool #
@LenSteenkamp I think they have different functions. G+ is social / communication. LMS is about management #heltasa11 #
@lensteenkamp I use G+, never liked FB much. We use a WordPress/Buddypress social network for coursework, I don’t intrude on students’ SN #
@dgachago17 Google will say: “Use Google+ because it will fulfill all of your educational needs and it is a magical experience” #
@dgachago17 Why wait for Google? What are we doing to promote it’s use? Are we even sure it has a use? #heltasa11 #
#heltasa11 day 2 is proving to be intellectually stimulating. Loving the presentations so far #
Naude: challenge students to imagine a future that doesn’t exist, then help them develop knowledge & skills to create it #heltasa11 #
1st speaker of the day says using technology in teaching isn’t as good as a good lecturer. Clearly he’s missing the point #heltasa11 #
@RonaldArendse I think it is viable #
@vivboz some people think he’s a big name, judging from comments I’ve heard. Not my opinion #
@RonaldArendse sorry, typing mistake, just pointing out Jansens ignorance…or was it a lie #
If students can pass without attending class, you have failed as a teacher. Best point of #heltasa11 so far #
@RonaldArendse Brian O’ Connell is a trained teacher. He’s not a VC though #
@dgachago17 a bit caught up in his own story though #
@dgachago17 @RonaldArendse battery going to die soon, will see you around #
@dgachago17 first keynote presenter was a “big name” #heltasa11 #
@RonaldArendse Maybe because the wifi doesn’t work? Or maybe because it’s not interesting? #heltasa11 #
@RonaldArendse Try to find one take away message from each presentation. Agree that this could be a challenge #
Thought we’d moved the conversation away from Prensky’s millenials? Why are we still talking about about how they’re “different”? #heltasa11 #
Interactive workshop on web-based clickers using cellphones with. Low cost approach for resource constrained environments #heltasa11 #
Everyone at #heltasa11 #heltasa – lets choose 1 hashtag for consistency. I vote for #heltasa11 Thoughts? #
I prefer “relationships” rather than “networks” #heltasa11 #
After Gutenberg learning was about “place”. After the 60′s it was about “technology”. Now it should be about “networks” #heltasa11 #
Disappointing keynote at #heltasa11 Too much “management”, not enough “learning” involved #
Here’s a post on some of my thoughts on my PhD process. I’m not sure how (or even if I can) push posts from my blog… http://t.co/w5uGnJE0 #
I’m at a meeting for a research project that is looking at the use of “emerging technologies” in higher education.… http://t.co/WN8Fjp1o #
@mah_asf40 no problem, maybe next year. Come spend some time in cape town #
@mah_asf40 it’s a conference for a group of south african educators to discuss approaches to teaching & learning in higher education #
@mah_asf40 it’s a higher education conference in Port Elizabeth #
Theoretical frameworks are just different ways of looking at the world. You can use different frameworks to look at… http://t.co/AuB7LWlG #
#heltasa11 begins tomorrow, anyone want to meet up? #