Data Gathering Tools

-->

Here is the MDX YouTube channel link to the Data Gathering Tools Presentation. 

This will give a flavour of the responses from our 20th November 2012 workshop. If you would like to view a more in depth evaluation of the Data Gathering Tools, then these can be accessed as a Google Doc at Data Gathering Tools. Please add or edit as you see fit. If you do add further thoughts on the data gathering tools, then you can cite this in your work.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this work at the 20th November workshop.

Can this be True? …

It seems on face value, perfectly reasonable to conceive of asking questions to get at the truth. When reading or watching TV I often think ‘is that true?’ ‘what is the truth behind that?’ and I’m sure you probably do to.

But what do we mean when we seek the truth in something? Does truth equate to Factualness? Or authenticity? Or righteousness?  Or other measures?

I pretty much think the notion of ‘truth’ is very difficult to handle in research that has a social basis (like a professional enquiry that seeks insights relating to professional practice as a social entity). This may be because truth is partly founded in the notion that something can be understood as factually correct. Now that is fine in the natural sciences (e.g. physics, biology, chemistry etc.) because the natural sciences seek to test empirically the basis of any fact statements. So for example, from a natural science perspective, we can be completely positive in stating that the Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection is true. It is established, scientific fact. But it is important to note that it may be true as a scientific fact, yet fail as a theological (social) truth. Within particular theological conceptions, Natural Selection is not true because it does not agree with particular theological teachings. Illogical as it might seem, when operating within certain religious contexts, Natural Selection is untrue.

Within professional practice, we seek to use social scientific methods to explain the human condition and experience. In doing so we recognise that any explanation is contingent on the particular social, cultural, political, economic, geographical and historical context that the experience exists within. To say there are underpinning ‘truths’ is to grip the experiences too tightly, squeezing out the relevance and meaning that comes from the situations in which the experiences occur.

So perhaps we should not ask whether something is ‘true’. But rather ask ‘what different possible accounts can we give for a particular phenomena?’ and ‘to what extent do we think one or more of these explanations is useable or worthwhile within a specific context?’ In making these assertions, we may seek underlying features (we call these generalisations) however in a great deal of social science research, absolute generalisable rules have to live alongside other features such as relevance of knowledge in a particular context.

The tighter and more specific the focus of our questions, the more we can block out the noise from all the different situations and contexts in which our questions could be posed and that would lead to different responses.

When we ask ‘What is the best way to teach Ballet’ we carry notions of absolute truths. The question starts with the premise that there is actually only one ‘best way’. The question ignores the range of situations, places, times, cultures, age groups etc. in which ballet may be taught.

Better perhaps to ask ‘In this very specific given situation, what different approaches to teaching Ballet produce what effects?’

You may like to view my previous Blog on the-art-of-asking that relates to this post.

the art of asking

Following on from a very stimulating and interesting discussion with BAPP Arts students last week and in relation to developing inquiry questions, I wanted to post some thoughts on the making of questions …

So what is a question?

If we were to visualise a question in the most general sense, then we could liken it to a torch. It is a tool we make and use to reveal new insights into the half-dark gaps in our knowledge. It is a tool in that we fashion and craft questions so they are the best tool to reveal the deepest insights and understanding. And in fashioning our questions, we seek to capture qualities in the question that illuminate and direct the searching within those half-dark gaps.

So what are the qualities or attributes of ‘questions’ that make for ‘better’ questions?

Firstly to recognise our own starting point, motivation or need. Why precisely do we want to know something? What would that knowledge enable us to do? What value do we attribute to that knowledge (or better still, who would value it and for what reasons?). Within this attribute lives the notion of bias. Bias is at one level the recognition that our questions are coming from somewhere, a need, a want, an interest. Bias to a question is like the beehive to the bee. It is where the bee comes from; its perspective is a hive-perspective. The hive gives the bee meaning in is constant search for nectar. To be biased is to be normal. To understand that the questions we ask are by their very nature, biased, provides us with a basis to understand where the questioner is coming from.

Agency is another attribute and is, probably, a category of bias, but worth mentioning separately. I think of agency as the ‘who’ or ‘what’ the question is asked on behalf of. So when we ask ‘is ISTD or National Curriculum a better framework for teaching dance’ we ask a question sanitised of any agency. We think, or imply, that there is some natural ‘truth’ out there, which this question hinges on. Untrue. This question is simply nonsense. However, were we to ask ‘what qualities to do KS3 dance teachers attribute to ISTD and National Curriculum’ we add an essential ingredient. That is, the agency in terms of teachers’ views’. 

Pragmatism is another worthwhile attribute of all questions. Pragmatism focuses our attention on what the question is being used for. What is produced or intended by the question? What is the question driving at? A question lacking purpose lacks both meaning and the means of producing an answer.

The next attribute that comes to mind is scope. This is about the appetite of the asker. When forming a question, what is the dimension(s) of the question? and number of issues? Connections? Variations? similarities and contrasts does the question imply? The question can simply be too big to answer given the time, resources and ability of the questioner. Recognising that within the limits of a given resource (time, ability of the questioner etc.) that a broader question will most likely lead to more superficial results. Depth of understanding, of quality of answer, of knowledge, will come with more focused questions.

So lastly I come to the attribute of the question making process itself. I see this as about crafting, honing and refining of questions, and through this process, the value and meanings themselves develop and become more concreted in our minds. As in all human endeavours, sustained engagement with any process helps to clarify where we are coming from, what we value and what we are trying to do. Asking questions is no different.

From Ink to Click

Imaging a world without books, without newspapers, without any basic form of mass media. A world where subversive, new ideas are spread by clandestine individuals ever fearful of the dominant and controlling influence of state and church. Where word of mouth was the main medium to transmit ideas, and that any digression from the authorised ideas were deemed heretical and a special police force existed precisely to hunt down any ideas that challenged that of the central power of state and church. Imagine a world where ideas were prevented from spreading in order to maintain the existing hierarchies of a few powerful individuals and families.

This apparent alien world was the world of 15^th Century Europe just prior to the invention of the printing press by Johannes Guttenberg.

This single technical development laid the foundation for mass media and in Europe heralded the sweeping away of 1500 years of church hegemony as Europeans for the first time had access to the Christian bible and could read the teachings of Christ for themselves. The printing press produced an explosion of ideas that fuelled the renaissance as classical Greek, Roman and Arabic texts were distributed and read by a mass audience. This spawned a vast array of technical and scientific developments that catapulted Europe from the medieval into the modern world.

Now, in the early 21^st century, many would argue the world wide web may reveal itself to be a seismic event no less significant than the labours of Johannes Guttenberg labouring in his workshop by candlelight back in the 15^th Century.

The connections made through the early developments of social media may well foretell a change of the most radical form. A change in how we work, trade, play, communicate and think. A change that might transform our thinking from the national to the global and carries the potential to democratise ideas at least as powerfully as the Guttenberg press? 

I would be really interested in your thoughts on this topic.

Web 2.0 in Higher Education

If you are interested in the principles and practices of using Web 2.0 for learning and teaching in higher education / work based learning you might wish to look at the following two publications:

Moteleb, A. & Durrant, A, (2009) ‘Using Web 2.0 technology in work based learning’, Proceedings of The 8th European Conference on e-Learning (ECEL 2009), University of Bari, Bari, Italy edited by Dr. Dan Remenyi. http://www.academic-conferences.org/ecel/ecel2009/ecel09-home.htm (2009) [pp. 391].

Bryant, P. Durrant, A. & Akinleye, A. (2012) Educating the Early Career Networked Arts Professional using a Hybrid Model of Work Based Learning in The Journal for Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. Emerald Publishing.

I can also highly recommend Stephen’s Web which has consistently high quality and up to date information and evaluation of the use of Web 2.0 for higher education:

http://www.downes.ca/

Mapping our Professional Networks

For Module 1 students (Part 3)

At the 22nd March Campus Session we discussed our current and future professional networks.

We firstly looked at how people out there in the WWW had developed their professional networks. One example was William Greeves professional network using the LinkedIn tool. Chris Butler explored ‘Mapping your professional network’ from the perspective of how often he was in contact with individuals on his network. These are interesting models and many more are easy to find using an internet search.

We then split into groups and discussed our networks, how they were constituted, and where they may go by building ‘maps’ to explore the networks. This built on Professional Network Maps created by students from previous years.

Luke, Kelly and Gemma produced a ‘stellar cosmos’ map, thinking about the relative distance to people in their networks, some closer, some on the periphery.

Simone, Hayley and Anya used their map to look at a different configuration of their networks, especially thinking about the connections between these networks.

Jo, Ahmet and John in their map also looked at the connections between the different ‘nodes’ on their networks.

You may like to view the Blogs of attendees who have or will be posted on this topic.

Module 2 - What the Inquiry Plan might look like

 I have produced a document that sets out some Inquiry Plan Headings that I think might help.

Module 1 Assessment - The tasks and how they relate to assesment at the end of the module

I posted this short explanation of assessment for module 1 on our YouTube Channel. I hope it assists you. I am happy, as are your Academic Advisers, to assist you with any questions on assessment.

Critical Reflection on the developing ideas of ‘Structured Improvisation’

MAINLY FOR MODULE 1 STUDENTS but of interest to others perhaps ...

This is my account of the campus session today, 28th February 2012. Please look at student Blogs for other takes on what happened.


At the campus session we explored the topic of critical reflection. We decided to raise and discuss an issue … in effect to practice the process of critical reflection. The topic that quickly emerged was the issue of reconciling the necessary structure (of curriculum, learning outcomes, learning objectives, lesson plans) with the need to react in the moment to the needs of students. (while this was an issue about teaching, the group thought it also applied to Choreographer-dancer and director-actor realtionships).

We coined the phrase ‘Structured Improvisation’. 

“Structure’ was seen as curriculum, learning outcomes, learning objectives, lesson plans and representative of standards and the manifestation of control. 'Improvisation' was seen as adaptive in the moment, drawing upon your own ‘memory bank’, reactive to students’ needs, a spontaneity, instinctive, and perhaps non-verbal or text based approach or practice. On reflection, this seems unecessarilly ‘opposed’ as an idea, but that is how it emerged in the session. Both aspects were seen as important, and toward the end of the session it was suggested that Structured Improvisation represented an attempt to create different balances between controlling and instinctive teaching practices depending on the needs of learners.

We also discussed some of the underlying reasons for the state of national curriculum and the diverse range of learners in a school setting and how the teacher can respond to both ‘delivering’ national curriculum while responding with more versatility and adaptability to the needs of students.

The most important outcome for me was to be a participant in a session where everyone was contributing to the process of critically reflection. The key points that came out of the session for me were:

a.    critical reflection is a process to be engaged and can be honed as a skill (likened by one participant to ;’muscle memory’);
b.    the reflection element is natural to us humans – we all do it – but to be ‘critical’ is to not accept the obvious or easy first thoughts, but to stay with the questioning, asking better and deeper questions;
c.    I thought that critical reflection is best structured around honing better questions.

When thinking about the initial proposition of ‘Structured Improvisation’ in teaching, I had the following questions:

1.    What is it?
2.    How did it come about?
3.    What is its purpose?
4.    Who does it?
5.    Are there different approaches?
6.    Who has previously commented on it – what did they say?
7.    What other ideas are associated with it?
8.    What relevance does it have to me?
9.    When does it occur?
10.    How is it engaged?
11.    What does it look or feel like?
12.    What does it mean?
13.    What value do I attribute to it?
14.    What values do other attribute to it?

Finally, it should be borne in mind that the idea of Structured Improvisation is a bit of theory making, but the session was really about the act of critical reflection in action. Structured Improvisation was simply the idea we were reflecting upon. Nevertheless I think all participants went away thinking about teaching in a slightly different way?  It would be interesting to know if they do and in what ways?

I will post some podcasts to BAPP YouTube made at the session.

Independence, Critical Thinking and ‘Self Discovery’

There is a great deal written about higher education and its purpose. There are many different perspectives and explanations of what higher education is, and its underlying purpose. Whether you are just starting out on BAPP Arts on the first module, or engrossed in planning or conducting your Professional Inquiry, I though it might be worth giving you three ideas about the attributes that Higher Education might be seeking to foster in students:

1.    Independence – I think of this as a ‘stance’ where we (students and teachers) each establish our own voice. This is not simply about opinions, but rather recognises the stances of others and our own responses to those positions. Success in higher education is partly about accessing information and views of others to help form our own understanding especially recognising where others are coming from.

2.    Critical Thinking – I think of this as a ‘practice’ where we do not accept any explanations on face value, but explore through questioning the value and meaning of the world around us. This is the practice of keeping an open mind, of questioning what others do and say, and most importantly, challenge our own ideas and views.

3.    Self-Discovery – I think of this as a ‘goal’ where we are trying to use our independence and critical skills to educate ourselves. Higher education of course includes aspects of training (being shown how to do things) and has elements of socialisation (fostering particular behaviours) but for me it is more important that we use the opportunity to find out new and deeper things about ourselves, the world, and our place in it.

As you move through your current studies, it might be worth asking:

Am I simply regurgitating existing views on my topic, interest or task, or am I bringing a worthwhile and personally relevant perspective that adds to my understanding?

To what extent am I happy to accept the ideas of others or my own without critically challenging them?

Am I really trying to improve myself and find out new things?

I would really like to hear your views on this … especially if you have other ways of thinking about this. If you are interested, this came out of a Blog response I posted to a Student Blog.