‘They’ve got more choice!’: Technology, social media, the teacher and the higher education learner of today

There has been considerable theoretical and practice based research on the role of the teacher in a digital higher education environment. Lewis, Marginson, & Snyder, (2005) argue that the underpinning narratives of what teaching in a digital university should be are conflated with competing discourses around the wider status of the university in society in the light of agendas such commercialisation, market responsiveness and informationalism.  This blurring of the debate makes it hard to clearly identify the characteristics of teaching practice in a digital university.  Within the nexus of pedagogical, administrative and technological practice that can be used to define teaching, there emerges considerations of privilege, power, status, and authenticity.  These considerations can change the ground rules of how we teach.  They shape the modes of delivery, the pattern of assessment and even the way students are recruited.

 

The teacher that engages actively with technology that replaces, imitates or adds to the learning, teaching and assessment strategies within their practice is forced to rethink the assumptions and practices they use in teaching.  There are patterns of decision making in the academy that run contrary to this kind of critical and sometimes fundamental evaluation.  Reviews of programmes can often occur infrequently and with little critical evaluation.   The use of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) such as Moodle or Blackboard can be inconsistent and ‘…imitate, not to disrupt, particular representations of teaching and learning’ (Hanley 2011).  Whether current teaching practice is drawn from that of the past (‘it’s the way we have always done it’) or caught up in expectations (‘it’s the only way we are allowed to do it’) or through the personal choices of the academic (‘it’s the way I want to do it’), it is clear that the decision making processes around the use of technology can become beholden to cliché and rhetoric, where tradition can become practice, which itself becomes concrete and immovable.

 

The result has been extensive debates around the role and position of technology, social media, and the internet in the modern university environment.  The concept of the Digital University, a euphemism coined to describe a wide and varied array of practices, suggests that there is a difference between the analogue university and the new digital one.  There are significant elements of zealotry, parsimony, arrogance and superiority, where the views of the protagonists (both individual and institutional) are frequently opposite and opposing.  Within the more polar positions expressed in the literature and in opinion pieces, there is a tension sometimes bordering on hostile conflict between technological advocates and those who have been derisively labelled ‘traditionalists’ or ‘luddites’.  However, this artificial dichotomy, bounded as it is by literature, research, exemplars of effective and ineffective practice, along with strongly held belief, may lead to higher education swallowing its own tail; an ouroboros institution, where considerations of platform consume the considerations of content, which then consumes the platform, with the cycle continuing ad infinitum.

 

All the while the learner, who has been interacting with peers socially in a creative and collaborative environment may arrive for their university experience and find their device won’t connect to the network, that their programme is predicated entirely on lectures and tutorials, that they have little opportunity to share or create content, or that their access to sites such as Facebook and YouTube is restricted or even banned (as they were in Australia’s largest post-secondary institution, TAFE NSW, until 2010, see Winterford (2009)).  The skills learners have acquired, been able to share and pass along, re-purposed and re-used through their engagement with social media, in areas such as research, collaboration, authentication and interaction, may be redundant in their higher education and under or unrecognised in the design and development of ‘cutting edge’ curriculum.

 

I have heard the following phrases (or variations of them) at review boards, validation panels, training session, appraisals, learning and teaching committees, curriculum design meetings and in lunchrooms.  Whilst anecdotal and entirely unreliable as evidence, I offer them not as arguments but familiar friends.  They are a snapshot of some of the conditions under which these cutting edge curriculums are constructed.  It would be inaccurate to suggest that these kinds of phrases represent the entire academy, for they do not.  I would argue however that almost everyone engaged in enhancing teaching and learning would have heard them uttered at some point.

 

‘We have to use lectures and tutorials because that’s the way all our other programmes are delivered’

‘Learning can only occur in the institution’

‘Students learn from teachers’

‘We use exams because it’s the only way to know that the students have learnt something and haven’t just copied their previous work’

‘Group work is problematic because there are always tensions and we can’t be sure all members have contributed equally’ 

‘The role of e-learning is to replicate the classroom experience’

‘Students are blank slates when they come to university; our job is to shape them’

The most critical question for me here is; what is the role of the learner in this dialogue?   In many ways, these kinds of comment suggest that the learner is mainly the receiver of knowledge, and that the teacher has a potentially privileged position to decide the best way to transmit that knowledge through learning, teaching and assessment.  Most VLE based systems still require an editor, a selector, a moderator and a leader.  Lectures are frequently monologues.  Social media platforms often require a social authority to support engagement and to provide some form of authentication (Brauer & Bourhis 2006).  Granted, the learner can assert influence over choosing the context in which they apply their newly acquired knowledge, but this may not happen until they graduate.  Arguably, in the modern university, the learner can choose the institution that teaches in a manner best suited to their needs.  They can feedback on their experience through the NSS.  How much of this directly influences the way learning, teaching and assessment is conducted? How much of this influence contributes to the debate on curriculum design and e-learning?

 

‘None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free’. 

 

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe made this comment in 1853 about society and its propensity to be lulled into a false sense of inaction.  Despite massive changes in the way universities are organised and funded, there is a sense that we may potentially be or have already been consumed by an equal sense of inaction.  Learners have changed substantially, and not just in terms of a price-service delivery expectation.  Amongst the rich traditions of debate around academic freedom, research informed teaching and professional judgement, lies perhaps a more fundamental consideration around the learner.  When I went to university over 25 years ago there was no internet or email. I had been to a library to research and was faced with row after row of card catalogues and musty, beautiful books.  I had used a PC since I was a teenager and knew how to programme it, but I was not in the majority. Arts making was the concern of the rich or the bohemian and the ability to create, distribute and promote my own art was the stuff of dreams (and record label contracts).  The modern learner has evolved.  Yet much of the way teaching, learning and assessment are conducted is the same as it was 25 years ago.

 

Now, I am not a throw the baby out with the bathwater kind of guy.   I am not arguing that technology should replace everything, burning it to the ground.  A lot of the practice of higher education is the established practice because it works.  But what I do ask is; have we evaluated these methodologies and approaches in the light of the new learner?  Even if we argue that learners are simply receivers, like radios, then there is now a variety of ways radio is made and consumed, as opposed to the one simple transistor radio of my youth.  We now have digital radios, internet radio, on-demand, podcasts, streaming, and yes, we still have analogue broadcasting (for the moment).  Taking the metaphor one step further, our learners represent similar diversity in construction and consumption, but in some cases, at University they are only receiving ‘The Archers’ (or Blue Hills for us Aussies) and not accessing the wide variety of choice that exists.  Instead of relying on what network programmers and music directors are telling them they should listen to, modern radio users aggregate content through social radio applications like Last-FM, Spotify and Pandora, share likes with friends over Facebook and make playlists and channels with multimedia content on YouTube.  These are new skills.  Skills that they want to apply to developing their knowledge and furthering their career.

 

Has the freedom we as academics have enjoyed to be creative in the past, now stifled us from making creative decisions for the future?  Those creative decisions are not always about which technology to use.  It can be about the relevance of technology, the role of the teacher, how we measure success, how we enhance practice, how we choose to engage or the type of learning spaces we provide or support.

 

What does this mean for the teacher?

Larry Hanley is his article about the changing face of higher education teaching ‘Mashing up the Institution’ published in Radical Teacher argues that the teacher in the new digital age faces a difficult choice;

 ‘We’ll have to abandon our institutional identities as users and clients to embrace more inventive, experimental, self-conscious identities.  Well have to become bricoleurs.’ (Hanley 2011)

 He goes to further to suggest what this means at the interface of learners and teachers by saying;

 ‘The bricoleur-faculty draws on and engages students in the expanding new literacies fostered by Web 2.0s new openness.  Whether via blogs or more explicit multimedia tools…the bricoleur-faculty asks students to make meaning through new conjunctions of sound, image, and text.  In the process, the bricoleur-faculty explicitly develops both students and his or her multi-literacies – navigating new semiotic landscapes that require new skills and new creativities.’ (Hanley 2011)

 

Note that one of the critical aspects of Hanley’s argument is that social media usage develops specific literacies that encourage the learner to remix and reuse (mash-up) skills in order to apply them to new landscapes (contexts).  The university has always provided a learning space, and to varying degrees these spaces have supported experimentation and creativity (Etzkowitz 2003; Power & Malmberg 2008).  However, this often occurs within strict boundaries (firewalls, enrolment etc) and with clearly identified roles for the learner and academic, supported by administrative structures that reinforce these roles.

 

Programmes that use social media and user generated content located outside the firewall, and positioned not as a replication of the classroom but to facilitate a different, connected form of education, challenge these learner and academic roles (Downes 2009).  The learning space becomes virtual, personal and interactive. The position of the academic at the lectern is replaced by clouds of knowledge that can be accessed, critically analysed and situated in the workplace by the application of trans-disciplinary skills, developed and practiced through the use of a variety web 2.0 technologies, including information literacy, evaluation, collaborative learning, dynamic searching and critical reflection (Fischer 2009; Hong et al. 2008).  This kind of environment allows the learner to utilise the skills they have acquired before and during their higher education.  It also provides for the development of connections and links that may ensure past their graduation, which in the current system will stop as soon as they stop paying their fees and lose access to the VLE.

 

I do not propose to find a clear and navigable path through these choppy and muddled waters.  I say this simply because I don’t believe there is one.  However, what is within our grasp is an understanding that learners are fundamentally different from those that went before them, as we were fundamentally different to those who went before us.  They bring with them to higher education an array of skills that are acquired through their interactions with social media platforms and other social media users.  These skills don’t sit easily in the existing infrastructure or teaching, learning and assessment practices of the modern University. Do we have a way to assess those skills, accredit them as being at a certain level, apply them to new contexts and repurpose them for engagement in and between disciplines?  Do we see the need to even undertake this kind of evaluation?

 

In a world where Facebook is often seen by employers as a way of finding out things they didn’t know about their staff, or as a waste of company time, how useful or relevant are the skills obtained on Facebook to working in a digital workplace?  Why do over a half of UK employers ban the use of Facebook at work? (Peacock 2011).  Facebook users have acquired or re-purposed skills within their usage of the platform. Facebook users are aggregators of content, they are networkers, they engage in constructive and critical debate and comment, they share creative efforts; they report regularly about their activities, they interact asynchronously.  These when broken down are valuable skills in a workplace, or relevant to a higher education.  Yet, they seem easy to dismiss as trivial or as distracting from real life.   Not all Facebook users are higher education learners, nor are all higher education learners on Facebook.  But as teachers, we cannot and should not assume our learners are blank slates.  Technology is not the inevitable instrument that will bring down lecture theatres and smash classrooms.  Our learners will be.  If higher education does not meet the needs of the next generation, then the next generation will go elsewhere for their knowledge.  They will learn, authenticate and use it themselves, within their social networks and communities created through and on social media.  They will find an authority outside the academy, or they will find or start an academy that will serve their needs.  Their own practice will vindicate and realise the learning.

 

Anna Kamenetz, author of DIY U (2010), notes that higher education is by its very nature ‘an inherently conservative enterprise’.  Conservative does not mean resistant to change.  The conditions we discussed earlier around academic freedom, learner centred learning and research informed teaching support adapting to a new learner and engaging in creative skills acquisition and learning.  However, as Goethe says, are we hopelessly enslaved simply because we believe we are free to make these choices?  Do we feel that by resisting the pull of technology, defending against its insidious influence and arguing for the way we have always done it (plus or minus one) we are defending higher education?

 

What do you think? I would love to hear from learners and teachers on this subject.  Send me a comment or an email.

 

 References

Brauer, M. & Bourhis, R.Y. 2006, ‘Social power’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 601-616.

Downes, S. 2009, ‘Learning networks and connective knowledge’, in H.H. Yang & S.C.-Y. Yuen (eds), Collective Intelligence and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking, p. 1.

Etzkowitz, H. 2003, ‘Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations’, Social Science Information, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 293-337.

Fischer, G. 2009, ‘Cultures of participation and social computing: Rethinking and reinventing learning and education’, paper presented to the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (Icalt),, Riga, Latvia.

Hanley, L. 2011, ‘Mashing Up the Institution: Teacher as Bricoleur’, The Radical Teacher, no. 90, pp. 9-14.

Hong, C., Caldwell, L., Ashley, T. & Alpert, V. 2008, ‘Transcultural perspective on digital practices and the arts in higher education’, paper presented to the Dance Dialogues: Conversations Across Cultures, Artforms and Practices : World Dance Alliance Global Summit., Brisbane, Australia, 13 -18 July.

Kamenetz, A. 2010, DIY U: Edupunks, edupreneurs, and the coming transformation of higher education, Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lewis, T., Marginson, S. & Snyder, I. 2005, ‘The network university? Technology, culture and organisational complexity in contemporary higher education’, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 56-75.

Peacock, L. 2011, ‘Companies ban Twitter from workplace’, The Daily Telegraph, 11th May 2011, viewed 10th May 2012 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8505288/Companies-ban-Twitter-from-workplace.html>.

Power, D. & Malmberg, A. 2008, ‘The contribution of universities to innovation and economic development: in what sense a regional problem?’, Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 233-245.

Winterford, B. 2009, NSW students tear through 40TB a month, viewed 3rd May 2012 <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/156440,nsw-students-tear-through-40tb-a-month.aspx>.

 

 

Employer Engagement in a Digital Age – Shameless Plug

Wednesday 4 July, 2012

Greenwich Maritime Campus

The Academic Practice and Technology (APT) Conference: Employer Engagement in a Digital Age is our tenth annual e-learning and technology conference at the University of Greenwich.  It will be held on Wednesday 4th July 2012.  It provides an opportunity to debate and explore the issues surrounding employer engagement with higher education in a changing and evolving digital world. The conference, which is sponsored by the Higher Education Academy, will be a forum where policy, practice and strategic developments can be explored, discussed and shared by practitioners and researchers in a vibrant and lively atmosphere.

Employer Engagement in a Digital Age aims to:

  • Share practices, tools and approaches that have enhanced the use of technology to support employer engagement
  • Explore the changing roles of employers and higher education within a international digital workplace
  • Present research into the impact of technology-led learning on employer engagement, curriculum design, and work based learning
  • Create a platform for students’ perspectives on the benefits of graduate skills and attributes for enhancing international and local employability
  • Set an agenda for the on-going debate about the relationship between universities, colleges, new e-learners and globalised e-employers

If you are interested in attending, click to the APT2012 site for more information

Transforming creative work in a digital age

Aside from the obvious assertions that people throw easily around noting that we all have to work, and that work will (has?) consume over one-third of our lives, have you really thought about what work means to you, in the digital age?  Have you thought about what skills and knowledge will you require to adapt to less permanent, more mobile, less tactile, more virtual careers.

Certainly from my memories of my grandfather who worked most of his life in a brewery, the way we work has changed from his day.  He went to work at 7am, had a beer, did his job, had lunch, had a beer after work and came home.  This was a five day a week routine, Monday to Friday.  No weekends, no overtime.  No email to be checked at home after dinner, no Skype meetings late at night.  And the beer he made was sold only in the state of New South Wales, Australia.  There was no export, no time difference, no globalisation, just localisation.  This was a full-time job; there were no casual positions, fractional working or contract labour.

 

From the experiences of creative industries workers, what has work become? Over the last decade, the arts in a number of major economies have consistently experienced reduced recurrent funding, increased reliance on either philanthropic donations or business/commercial income and pressure to survive in an increasingly self-centred and entrepreneurial world.   Both government and philanthropic funding bodies, through grant allocation processes and compliance regimes, have sought to impose ‘for-profit’ practices on the arts and cultural sector in order to seek or continue public funding or to comply with broader cross-sector industry policy shifts within the economy (Johanson 2008).  This has resulted in direct government intervention in the management and practices of the organisation (Weisbrod 1997, pp. 543-5) and the emergence of threats to the organisational mission through the application of ‘coercive… pressures’ (Dolnicar, Irvine & Lazarevski 2008, p. 11) and the drifting of organisational missions (Dalton & Green 2005).  It can be argued that these outcomes may lead to an improvement of the ongoing viability of the organisation, but at what cost?  And how do these changes impact on the role of the worker and the work they do?

 

In a major report commissioned by the Australia Council for Arts entitled ‘Don’t give up your day job’ by Michael Throsby and Virginia Hollister (2003), there were a number of interesting observations about the nature of creative work in Australia, which included the inability of some artists to undertake professional development due to the pressures of money and time (or more specifically the lack of money arising from financial returns of their creative work) and that over half the artists in Australia earned less than A$7000 (around £4500) per annum from their artistic practice.  These relatively low income figures, shifting impermanence of careers and lack of opportunity to develop have been debated consistently through research studies over the last decade (Bennett 2009; Bilton 2007; Comunian, Faggian & Li 2010).

 

So, what has become of arts and cultural work in this new digital environment?  Rather than getting into a long commentary on the philosophical debates around some of the data and research, I thought I would just comment on my observations, made through my own practice and experiences both teaching arts practitioners and working myself in the field.

 

1.Work is transitory

Full-time work is becoming rarer.  Contracts are shorter; workers are becoming self-sufficient managing their own pensions, insurance and businesses.  Portfolio careers are becoming the norm, where arts workers have a variety of jobs (some arts related, others not) to support themselves and aggregate income.  The notion of career development within a job or single employer has shifted markedly, with career leaps frequently happening due to changes in employment between organisations rather than within.  Managing time, presenting a professional image online and reacting quickly to opportunity are hallmarks of this kind of employment.  The use of Linked-in, Facebook or Twitter as business cards for your practice require thought about your professional persona, the image you want to present and how these personas connect with each other.  Transitory work also means you need to be willing to develop and learn skills quickly and be able to apply them without too much practice, which means building into your career time ongoing and regular practice, rehearsal and professional development, led and often paid for by yourself.

 

2. Work is trans-global

Working in your home city or your home country is not necessarily mandatory.  Arts work as it moves to digital environments, or is facilitated by rapidly improving digital communications has moved to using concepts such as virtual studios, cloud collaborations, virtual meetings, technology integrated practice and user generated content sharing.  This makes work trans-global.  A photographer in Sydney can take photos in Berlin, share them on a blog or Flickr and exhibit them anywhere in the world he likes (see my good friend Alex Pekar’s exhibition entitled ‘Abandoned Berlin’ at the Archetype Gallery in Sydney if you are there http://www.archetypegallery.com/now_and_next_chauvel.html).

 

Trans-global work might mean that as an artist I move my practice to where the professional work might be.  This presents challenges in terms of integration, ‘breaking’ into a scene or adapting to changes in language, law or culture.  Whilst work becomes trans-global the attitude to migration (outside the EU) is changing rapidly.  Just ask an Aussie trying to work in the UK!

 

3.Work is trans-discipline

Some of the skills of work are now free from disciplinarily or specific industry contexts.  Whether it be demonstrated through graduate attributes (see the Greenwich Graduate Initiative for examples of this kind of approach (http://www2.gre.ac.uk/about/schools/eddev/support/graduate), transferable skills or professional practice sets, some of the skills of work are now transferable between contexts, generic and applicable to a variety of levels of work.  Covering skills such problem solving, information technology, social media, collaboration, content generation and research (inquiry), trans-disciplinary skills support both the transience and the trans-global nature of modern work.  McWilliam, Hearn and Haseman (2008) identifies a number of trans-disciplinary spaces within creative industries practice including;

-          Technology, which includes the use and application of new devices, software platforms and new media

-          a social/human component, which includes how we interface with each other and technology, how we do business, how we engage with each other and the environment and the ways in which we regulate activity

-          a content component – how we innovate content such as performance, design, look, feel, roles we play (McWilliam, Hearn & Haseman 2008)

 

I would add to that a cultural component about interacting and engaging with the culture around us, an emotional component centring on how we react to situations, how we build and sustain relationships and how we chose to act as a professional and finally a creative component, supporting the development of new ideas, problem solving, critical thinking, inquiry and curiosity and analysis.

 

4. Work is transformative

When my grandfather worked, the transformations that occurred in his work practice were in the creation and mashing of raw materials into something completed different (hops, wheat, malt and water into beer).  I am not sure how much of his life was transformed by his practice.  As arts professionals, there is a blurry line between what we do as artists, what we live as artists and what we passionately want to share as artists.  The notion of work simply to earn an income or to mark time between 9am until 5pm is in some instances dated.  Work transforms who we are, the way we live our lives and the way we engage with other aspects of our everyday existence.  My wife often will interrupt a conversation and say ‘Peter, stop using your teacher voice!’  But for me the practice of teaching signifies in a number of ways who I am.  Being a teacher has had a transformative effect on my relationships, my values and my personality.  The same can be said for my arts practice.  I took a long time to have the confidence to call myself an artist, even though I had been engaged in creative practice for decades. But the on-going impact of my creative practice on my professional identity, the way I worked and the way I developed myself in terms of education was too big to ignore by dismissing arts as ‘dabbling’.

 

Mezirow (1997) in a seminal article about transformative learning argues that transformations can occur within the frames of reference we operate in (work for example) and encourage is to be more ‘inclusive, discriminating, self-reflective, and integrative of experience.’  The transformative nature of work shouldn’t be underestimated, and once again, integrating it with the changes occurring from trans-globalism, trans-disciplinarily and transience the new world of digital work within e-workplaces, e-commuting, e-learning and e-collaborative space is looking less and less like the brewery floor in the 1950s.

 

Work is more than a site where money is earned in exchange for activity or labour.  Work harnesses creativity, originality, learning, expression, research, desire and passion.  Work can facilitate the mode and spaces of living you choose.  Work can develop, challenge, evaluate and apply new knowledge and skills.  Work can shape our professional image and transform our confidence, our interactions and our relationships.  The work we do today probably won’t be the same as the work we do in 10 years time.  The days of going home with chalk dust all over my clothes is long gone, technology has shaped and changed the way I engage with materials, talk with colleagues and find stuff out. What makes the process interesting and perhaps fun is having the scaffold of skills that you allow you to adapt, to build and to innovate and invent yourself.

 

NOTE: If you are interested in these kinds of discussions and issues, or just interested in employer engagement, then you should consider attending the University of Greenwich ‘Employer Engagement in a Digital Age’ conference on the 4th July 2012 at the Maritime Greenwich campus in London.  For more information you can check out the website 

 

Bennett, D. 2009, ‘Careers in dance: Beyond performance to the real world of work’, Journal of Dance Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 27-34.

Bilton, C. 2007, Management and creativity: From creative industries to creative management, Wiley-Blackwell.

Comunian, R., Faggian, A. & Li, Q.C. 2010, ‘Unrewarded careers in the creative class: The strange case of bohemian graduates’, Papers in Regional Science, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 389-410.

Dalton, B. & Green, J. 2005, Sweet charity and filthy lucre: the social construction of nonprofit business venturing in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States – CACOM Working Paper no 72, Centre for Australian Community Organisations and Management – Univeristy of Technology, Sydney.

Dolnicar, S., Irvine, H. & Lazarevski, K. 2008, ‘Mission or money? Competitive challenges facing public sector nonprofit organisations in an institutionalised environment’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 107.

Johanson, K. 2008, ‘How Australian industry policy shaped cultural policy’, International Journal of Culutral Policy, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 139-48.

McWilliam, E., Hearn, G. & Haseman, B. 2008, ‘Transdisciplinarity for creative futures: what barriers and opportunities?’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 247-53.

Mezirow, J. 1997, ‘Transformative learning: Theory to practice’, New directions for adult and continuing education, vol. 1997, no. 74, pp. 5-12.

Throsby, D. & Hollister, V. 2003, Don’t Give Up Your Day Job: an Economic Study of Professional Artists in Australia, Australia Council for the Arts.

Weisbrod, B.A. 1997, ‘The Future of the Nonprofit Sector: Its Entwining Private Enterprise and Goverment’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Government, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 541-55.

 

Don’t know what I want, but I know how to get it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Learning can be a strange process.  I was recently at a session that explored issues around student satisfaction.  This is a phrase that has many meanings, and many people arguing over those many meanings.  Spending the day listening to experts, students, student experts and expert students I was struck by a few thoughts that about the notion of satisfaction, which for universities is such a key and critical concept and arguably for students and potential students will be a key factor in deciding which university to attend.  Very early on in the day I was struck with the word itself.  Satisfaction seems such a neutral word to describe what is often an emotional, personal and collaborative journey like university.  It doesn’t engage with the highs and lows of learning.  It just says ‘I am satisfied’.  You can be satisfied and be happy and/or unhappy.  In some ways it’s a cop-out word.  It’s like answering OK when someone asks how you are.  Often as we progress through our career and engage in professional practice we get things done to a point where we are satisfied or whether others are satisfied with what we do.  In some ways, this description ‘satisfactory’ strips away the emotional and attitudinal connections that can occur through successful or unsuccessful attempts at practice.
Experiential learning represents a wider spectrum of emotion and experience than simply satisfaction or service can explain.  Learning can be a fun process, which we sometimes forget.  New things, new people and new experiences can engage the senses, encourage the mind to explore and allow you to find the humour and the funny stuff in what we do.  Never mind the reward (good grades?) or punishment (bad grades?), we engage in learning because it is fun, enjoyable, interesting and most of all, transformational.  I sometimes feel that I have done a lot of my qualifications because I ‘had to’.  That behavioural motivation does not always, on the surface, make learning seem fun. But through teaching, practice, interaction and yes, sometimes even assessment, I had fun.  I enjoyed the process and practice of learning.  How does a university or survey measure this? How do we as learners feed this kind of experience back to the university, to our peers, to our teachers and to our friends?  How does our institution support and nurture this kind of learning environment? And finally, how can we take this creative and fun practice out into the work force, into our daily lives and our professional practice?  There is a lot of questions and there and not a lot of answers I know!

 

There is a movement in higher education called ‘edupunk’ which has been popularised by one of my fave education academics, Stephen Downes.  Edupunk applies the principles of punk (rebellion, do-it-yourself attitudes and thinking independently) to higher education.    Whilst it is a fairly incomplete theoretical approach (did punk have any lasting social impact asks one critic?) it does challenge the notions of satisfaction and positions learning as a sometimes down and dirty emotional process.

‘It’s about a culture, a way of thinking, a philosophy. It’s about DIY. Lego is edupunk. Chalk is edupunk. A bunch of kids exploring a junkyard is edupunk. A kid dismantling a CD player to see what makes it tick is edupunk.’ 

D’Arcy Norman

Matching the fun, the rebellion and the collaborative processes is a darker, more traumatic space of learning.  As kids, we learn through experience, and that experience isn’t always positive.  So, when I was growing up, red was my favour colour.  I liked red cordial, strawberries and red candy.  I noticed that when you heated up a spoon it went red.  You can imagine the next step.  A trip to casualty, some horrible tasting burn cream and only eating things that were mushed (red or otherwise) for weeks. I learnt through a traumatic experience.

One of my favourite writers on adult education is Stephen Brookfield.  He writes about the dark side of learning.  But by dark side he doesn’t see learning as a solely negative endeavour (ie: the only way to work out a spoon is hot is to taste it).  He argues that the transition from these emotional and visceral experiences to a realisation about learning is where the ‘fun’ or more realistically the positive experiences can occur. For example, he talks about a negative learning experience such as ‘impostership’.  This is where that by admitting that you don’t know something about your job, you feel you are an imposter as a professional.  We can all think of times we have felt like this.  And by acting on that feeling, by initiating learning, finding knowledge through consultation or collaboration or doing something and seeing if it works, we can use the negative space to generate positive outcomes.  Alternately, by becoming a student an adult learner may also feel an imposter because they feel they have no right being a learner because it’s an admission that they don’t know something.  This is a traumatic space to start learning, but the realisation can be facilitated by learning can lead to more than just satisfaction.  Pride in achievement, or by reading the works of ‘experts’ feeling their views and perspectives evolve, be challenged, reinforced and then confident enough to share them with others or write their own.

Another negative reflective experience is the notion of ‘lost innocence’, where we as learners come to learning to seek answers and leave finding ways to ask the right questions.  He offers an example of a learner who explains this lost innocence;

‘When I came to this university at some level I thought I was going to find the truth….There was the feeling that if truth didn’t reside in the heads of you guys – or on the library shelves – then it couldn’t be found anywhere. Then I got here and the first I heard from you all were things like ‘it’s more important to ask the right questions than find the right answers’…But after a bit I got what you all meant and I started to be a bit more sceptical about things I read and aware of clichés, things like that. Now while this was happening one part of me was saying this is really good, you’re getting more sophisticated; you’re looking beyond the surface. But another part of me was annoyed about what was happening. I used to get up in the morning thinking that life was black and white, good and bad, that there were always answers to problems. Now I say to myself ‘it all depends on how you look at things’ …’ Brookfield, S. 1994, ‘Tales from the dark side: A phenomenography of adult critical reflection’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 203-16.

 

Going back to Edupunk and DIY education, perhaps part of this interaction between fun and challenge leads to us to the ability to take control of our learning.  Not relying on a person in a ‘brightly lit fluorescent room’ to tell us what to think, how to think and then to check that we have expressed it correctly (or ‘learnt’ it) as the sole way of teaching, learning and assessing.  Not accepting that satisfaction is the ultimate outcome of learning.  These concepts are harder to measure immediately.  They are even harder to compare and share, because they don’t exist in a dichotomous space.  They are part of a bigger picture of learning.  It is the type of learning that learning by experience encourages. The things we do and things we have done construct the things we know and helps us identify and perhaps rectify the things we don’t.  And this kind of process isn’t about being satisfied; it is about being engaged, amused, challenged, angered, empowered and recognised.

 

Simplicity

street art flowers

Sometimes we can get caught up in trying to find ever more complex reasons for why something happens.  We use bigger words; we divide concepts up into smaller and smaller fields, fracturing them beyond recognition.  Are we missing the simplicity that can inform some of our most profound moments of learning?

Recently I have written a lot about the levels of higher education here in the UK.  These levels talk about the types of skills and knowledge that is required of learners at a specific point in their higher education.  The offer verbs that can be used by people writing HE programmes and by students being assessed in those programmes to describe the type of learning that may be occurring.  There is an increasing complexity as we progress through a programme.  For example at level 4 (first year undergraduate) you may simply know something, at level 6 you may need to apply and analyse something and when you reach level 7 (Masters level) you will need to be able to critically evaluate, share and apply that thing to new circumstances.  One of the criticisms of these levels is that there is an assumption that the more complex the processes, the higher the level of learning that may be occurring.     

But is higher level learning that can evolve from simpler tasks?  Aside from the zen implications (!) the completion of what might appear simple or ‘easy’ tasks, or the learning of knowledge that others might think straightforward can lead to higher level learning.  Identifying simplicity in something, finding the ideas, the theories and the practice that make it simple, and make it work can be a very critical and evaluative process.

Of course, being me, there is a music example.  This year in a moment of sheer kitsch and fun I went to Eurovision in Dusseldorf, Germany.  Now, Australian readers amongst you clearly understand why anyone would want to go to Eurovision, but it is not a universally acknowledged major tourist attraction.  It is, however, one of the most watched TV events in Europe year.  The songs themselves are usually criticised for their tacky lyrics and melodramatic euro-pop stylings.  But the funny thing is they sell records, people vote, even people with more high-brow music tastes find joy in them.  I have spent the last two days listening to Eurovision songs as background music for some difficult writing I had to do and found myself thinking critically about the way the song was written and produced.  What makes them catchy and have that hook?  Those of you seeking song-writing glory can rest assured that I don’t the answer, but what I did hear is simplicity; easy to sing lyrics, memorable chord changes and relatively sparse simple arrangements. 

I am not going to argue that complexity is bad.  There is much to be said for the ability to see new solutions to problems through complexity.  Complexity also develops the ability to be flexible and responsive in the face of ever changing environments.  Complexity supports multi-tasking, inter-discipline thinking and creativity.  There is however something to be said for being able to see the simplicity in concepts, the beauty of a simple idea or the learning that can come from doing a simple thing very well and sharing it with others.  In a world where knowledge is being constructed, reproduced and opinionated at an ever increasing pace, and where markets, practices and expertise are shattering into micro-fragments in order to find a competitive advantage or to differentiate oneself, being able to seek and find simplicity, and to be able to explain and contextualise that simplicity within your own practice, your learning and education or just to share it is something we should perhaps do more often.

 


I am so lost without it, experiential learning

stencil art, athens

Interesting concept, this experiential learning thing.  We talk about learning from experience, reflecting on what we do and how we do it and then improving for the next time.  It is well established in literature and underpins all manner of courses from work based learning to apprenticeships and sandwich programmes.  Yet, we also make a huge case for currency.  Things we experienced recently seem to carry more weight than those early in our lives.  CVs ask for the last five years only, degrees and qualifications become obsolete and those early career experiences are perhaps little more than youthful follies.  Delving even further back, you would be laughed at if you included work and experiences from your school years in a job application or as part of explaining your life experience.  Experiential learning shouldn’t be simply about doing and reflecting.  These experiences represent something more than simple ‘experience’.  They are scaffolds; developmental practices that support and improve how we do things.  And they support the learning of a critical skill – the ability to adapt. 

Let’s take a step back.  Over 30 years ago I was a kid living in a small western suburb of Sydney called Dundas.  It was an interesting place to grow up because I lived in a cul-de-sac which had a creek and reserve running at the bottom of it.  This reserve was for a time densely forested and had a number of tracks, hiding spaces and rock formations.  Perfect for kids to play any manner of games.  The street had nearly 15 other kids, spread across two age ranges.  The eldest kids were 8-10 years older than me.  One of these kids was my brother.  My brother had the big bedroom, the funky yellow globe shaped hi-fi and the Morris Minor with a CB radio and a whole heap of loose change on the floor (perfect for buying a 7c bottle of lemonade).  He also had a record collection.  I listened to his records constantly.  There was one record that I loved. The cover was so bright and colourful.  I wanted to look like the singer on the left, especially the vest and shirt ensemble! I poured over every detail.  I listened to each song carefully, reading the words off the back as the song went along.  When I started getting money for Christmas and was allowed in Parramatta by myself, I bought this band’s other records.  I traced their logo for a poster on my wall.  In 1983, I took the cassette of their greatest hits which I got for Christmas that year into school and was dismayed when it was defaced by the boys who considered it soft.  And yes it was.  It was soft rock at its worst. 

Move forward 30 years to London and I find myself seeing this band play live for the first time.  And in my strange, strange way I find myself thinking about why I am seeing this band.  I had stopped listening to them over 20 years ago.  I had donated their albums to charity.  I doubt my brother still has scratchy old copy of that album.  But this band was my first fan experience.  Everything I have listened to since that time evolved from the skills I learnt by being a fan of that band.  I can safely say that my experiential learning in a number of key skill areas started at that point. 

·         The importance of tactility as a part of the way experience things. 

·         Creativity and how it comes in different packages.

·         Be proud of who you are

All my musical tastes have evolved from those formative album experiences.  Not directly mind, but I have adapted the things I liked into other forms of music.  I used the same model of learning from others when two of my mates who knew far more about music than I did started exposing me to other types of music.  Each successive iteration of musical development, I utilised these skills and adapted them to new circumstances.  When I started DJ’ing in a style of music I liked but knew little about (the lyrics were in French!) the ability to adapt a variety of skills to a new circumstance really came into its own.  The importance of visuals, the filtering of things that sounded good from the things that didn’t (there were hundreds of records in my brothers collection I hated – Seals and Croft anyone?).

Bored yet?  Yes?  Well I keep it simple and short.  Experiential learning is more than learning to do something better. It is also about learning to do something differently. It is about adapting what we know to different circumstances.  It is about sharing that with others.  How long ago you learnt something is irrelevant. How you choose to adapt, be informed and use that learning is the key.  Experiences are more than experiments.  They are constructing knowledge and skills in a way that is sustainable and flexible, but also hopefully reliable and relevant.    

And yes, even after 30 years I still remembered every word.  And I sang along and shook the singer’s hand, and despite myself, I enjoyed it immensely.    

 


Different modes of critical reflection – web 2.0

The idea of being a critically reflective practitioner is fundamental to many professions. In terms of work based learning, we talk about the different theoretical and practical approaches to reflection, whether that is Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, or Schon’s reflection in action. However, social networking provides us with some interesting curveballs in terms of critical reflection.

How do we use web 2.0 to encourage reflection on our own practice, facilitate it with others or impact on the behaviours of others around us. Riedinger (2006) suggests that web 2.0 applications, such e-portfolios ‘…open wide the possibilities for reflections of all types: in action, before action, after action, in solitude, in consultation with peers, in consultation with instructors, coaches, and advisers, written, spoken, videotaped, or graphically represented’ (Riedinger 2006: 93)

The ability to undertake reflection using a variety of instruments, whilst suggesting that we might be spoilt for choice, also encourages us to use the tools or mediums we are most comfortable with, whether that be text, audio, video or simply sharing experiences with others using chat or skype. Tosh and Werdmuller (2004) argue that the combination of these tools as instruments of learning is an extremely powerful form of critical reflection, where we are engaged not just as consumers of information but as evaluators and creators. They call this multi-platform space a ‘learning landscape’, where ‘…learners engage in the whole process both academically and socially should increase the opportunity to build one’s learning instead of just being the recipients of information’ (Tosh & Werdmuller 2004: 7).

Have we considered the role of engagement in this process of critical reflection? To this point, we have assumed we are engaged in our practice, keen enough to ask questions and seek to improve it. However, Jenny Moon (2001) suggests that learning can occur, at a less detailed level, when we simply ‘notice’ things. A deeper level of learning we need to make sense of the things we notice, construct meaning from them, work with that meaning and finally transform our practices (see Jenny Moon, http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/hr/researcher-development/students/resources/pgwt/reflectivepractice.pdf). These deep layers of learning occur when we engage and become connected to the practices of reflection and the outcomes of that reflection

In the context of our wider discussion about facilitating reflection using web 2.0 platforms, let’s look at two very unique notions with reflection, feedback and collaboration. They both bring other people into the reflective circle. They widen they scope of contemplation past out own navels and into our community, our networks, our peers or our leaders. Feedback positions our practice within a wider structure of other practices and asks others to critically evaluate it, feeding back to us the output of that evaluation. Collaboration at its simplest level is informed by the old cliché that ‘two heads are better than one’, but at a complex level accesses the power of the whole, the work of teams, the creative energy that can flow from the collaborative process and innovation and excitement that comes from working with some one.

Kroop, Nussbaumer and Fruhmann (2010) expand on these two notions in the context of learning by breaking down the reflective processes that a web 2.0 environment can enable, which support the practices of feedback and collaboration. They include ‘…discussing, arguing, disputing, revising, reviewing, assessing, writing, reworking and producing articles’. (see http://mature-ip.eu/files/matel10/kroop.pdf). These active processes are enabled by the tools we use in social networking and social media. In general, they also require an engaged approach to reflection, not simply absorbing information or noticing it, but becoming involved in its production and sharing.

I found this youtube video by accident. It is a well evidenced argument that the modern student engages in a different way of thinking, consumes more information digitally and reflects in a different way on their experiences and practices. Have a look.

Getting the best out of your survey

many of you are starting to use surveymonkey or other online survey tools to collect some exploratory data about your topics.  This is a great start to your inquiry.  However, not all surveys or questionnaires are created equal!  There are some simple, but effective things you can do to make any questions you ask, but particularly questionnaires better.

Survey research is often lumped in with quantitative research. It is an incorrect assumption to say that the only data you can gather from surveys is about numbers and percentages. Surveys are one of the most used and important forms of data collection instrument because they allow you to collect a lot of data from people in a relatively short period of time at a lower cost.

The survey is the package that presents the questions and also contains the record of responses for each respondent. The first section of the survey generally introduces the study to the respondents. The middle section contains the items and scales to measure the survey topics in a logical sequence. The final section usually has questions to measure the respondent’s demographic characteristics, like age, gender and income, so they can be grouped and compared.

The survey usually has other components, which help in data preparation and analysis. This includes spaces to record the data and codes that identify particular respondents. The survey may also have interviewer instructions to make sure that each respondent gets asked the same questions in the same way. This ensures answers that can be compared, collated and analysed in the most effective way. Interviewer instructions are a standard part of survey design. These instructions do not suggest that interviewers do not know what they are doing, but are designed to assist interviewers through sometimes confusing and complex surveys.

How many times have you asked what you thought was a clear question only to get an answer that doesn’t make sense to you or to realise that the person has interpreted the question differently to how you intended? For example, imagine asking a friend this question: ‘How is that cool new iPod you bought last Saturday?’ and your friend replies: ‘Oh no, I didn’t buy it on Saturday, I just went to visit my grandmother on Saturday’. Obviously, you wanted to know about the new iPod, regardless of when it was bought. A good survey is only as good as the questions it asks.

There are a number of very important guidelines to keep in mind when designing a survey. Most of these ensure that the reliability and validity of the survey is kept intact and you get the information you set out to get in the first place! No researcher wants to spend weeks of time and thousands of dollars on a research project only to find that they can throw out the results because of a bad question.

The problem with survey design is a simple one – there is no one right way. The questions you ask, the order you ask them in all will change according to the situation. Survey design is never black and white; it always has shades of grey.

Some key things to think about as you write your survey instrument…

1. What questions should be asked?
2. How should questions be phrased?
3. How to ask good questions
4. What is the best question sequence?

Let’s talk about questions specifically. Writing questions is one of the most important aspects of survey design. Here are some of the most common considerations in writing questions for a survey…

1. Clarity: The questions you ask must be clear and without ambiguity. Your objective is to make sure your respondent interpret the question differently. You want to make sure each respondent answers the question in the same way. Keep your language simple, your questions clear and easy to understand and don’t get caught up in jargon or complexity if possible.
For example, if you are asking people about how often they do something, using a scale such the one below is open to interpretation
(i) Very Often
(ii) Often
(iii) Sometimes
(iv) Rarely
(v) Never
It is better to make the choices more concrete, for example;
(vi) At least once a day
(vii) 2-5 Times a Week
(viii) About Once a Week
(ix) About Once a Month
(x) Never

2. Embarrassing Questions: Embarrassing questions dealing with personal or private matters should be avoided, unless necessary. Questions involving personal or private data should have those cleared through the ethics approval process.

3. Hypothetical Questions Hypothetical questions are based on the respondents opinions without having them based in actual experience. Sure, they make fun games at pubs, but are not really indicators that if put in a situation in real life that the respondent would behave in the same way.
If you were the director of theatre, what would you do to stop declining attendances?
4. Prestige Bias: This is one of the hardest issues to avoid. Prestige bias is the tendency for respondents to answer in a way that makes them feel better. For example, asking people if they donate to children’s charities will often result in the person answering yes simply so they don’t look bad in the eyes of the person interviewing them. Think carefully about whether you are getting a true response at all time.

5. Double-barreled questions
This is when you as the respondent to comment on two or more actually quite different concepts. The result of this type of question is that you may not get a true response on either of your questions.

Example: How do you rate the quality and taste of the food you have just eaten in my restaurant?

The quality may have been good, but the taste was like old boots. How would you answer this question?

6. Loaded questions
Loaded questions are when you attempt to influence the answer the respondent gives by introducing bias into the question.

Example: How much did you enjoy the performance?

7. Mutually exclusive scales
Sometimes, you ask respondents to put information on a scale or a tick box. Mutually exclusive scales ensure that the person ticks the most appropriate answer

What age are you currently (please tick)?
18 or less
18-25
25-35
35-45
45 or over

What happens if a person is 35? Which box do they tick?

8. Open ended questions
Open ended questions are when you want more than a yes/no answer to your questions. Open ended questions are designed to draw out detail, observations, and feelings – all qualitative data. Open ended questions often ask the question why? Some examples include;

Can you describe the emotions you felt at the completion of the performance?
In what ways do you feel you could improve the service to the customer?

9. Closed questions
This is where you want to limit the range and scope of answers that arise from specific questions. Closed questions allow the researcher to tabulate (bring data together from different respondents) by using percentages.

Example: What is your sex?
Did you purchase your ticket for the performance?
Online
In person
On the phone
Other (please specify)

10. Asking questions that you don’t really need to know the answer to

Respondents have a limited amount of time generally and you need to be aware of the issues surrounding asking too many questions. Make sure the questions you ask help solve your research problem. If they are irrelevant or confusing, rewrite them or get rid of them altogether.

The funnel technique
A good way to start writing your survey is to think carefully about the broader issues you want to investigate, then with each successive question you get down to the nitty gritty. This is called the funnel technique because your questions start at a very broad level and gradually funnel inwards.

For example:

• What do you feel are the three main issues for dance educators in improving the skills level of primary school children?
• Now thinking specifically about issue number 1, in what was does it impact on your curriculum development?
• What strategies have you used to keep up-to-date with current thinking around issue number 1?

Do I have to all of this on paper?
No way! There are a number of online ways to both design and administer a survey. The simplest to use of all of these is survey monkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com). It is free to use for a small number of surveys.

Here is a link to a little survey I have put up as an illustration. Have a go at doing the survey and see what it can do. When you have done the survey, when we start to talk about data collection and analysis I will use the data to illustrate my talk.

Here is the link to the survey, it is only short (around 6 questions)

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PBD9LHN

Here is a youtube video on using survey monkey

Some resources to have a read through

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/library/skills/Advice/QuestionnaireDesign.pdf

http://iss.leeds.ac.uk/info/312/surveys/217/guide_to_the_design_of_questionnaires/5

Sustaining professional practice

I have just returned from a two week study tour of the US, where I was interviewing American artists about their professional practice.  I thought I would share some of the insights that I gained. 

For me, the key focus was looking at how emerging artists move from training to practice, and the different paths they take to be able to earn a living from their art.  Many studies around the world point to less than 20% of trained artists being able to earn a living wage from the output of their art (see ‘Don’t give up your day job’, by Throsby and Hollister, which is an Australian study if you are interested http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/32497/entire_document.pdf).  It’s a scary statistic and one which an emerging artist is not often aware of, but rapidly becomes so.  I interviewed a number of arts organisations and artists about their experiences with this, and what activities they did to maintain their skills and interact with other artists.   I was able to identify a number of practices that artists engaged with in order to increase the income that was generated from their art…

1.       Promotion activities

Visual artists often go to art fairs and shows, buy a table and exhibit their works.  Sometimes these works are sold and they pay the fair owner a commission, other times they make contacts.  After the global financial crisis artists noted that people wanted to pay less for more, so instead of selling one £500 piece, they were selling ten £50 pieces, which took more work and materials and was often at a lower price point.  The same could be said of performing artists through auditions, taking shorter less lucrative jobs or smaller roles (but hopefully more of them)

Artists also spent a long time on their on-line identity, building their facebook or myspace profile, ensuring they had a website or blog, which was updated regularly, professional in its appearance in terms of photography, video and graphic design.  They all attempted to be multi-media even though for example, they made wood art, they would have story books and video footage and perhaps even a podcast about how they carved a certain piece.  Many visual artists used a site called etsy (http://www.etsy.com) to promote and sell their work, which also requires a lot of time to ensure the store is up-to-date and interesting.

2.       Volunteer activities

This was the man focus of my interest.  This is where the artist works with artist groups, collectives, organisations and the like to promote specific causes, agitate for action, help other artists or support artist led community work.  One of the spaces I met people in Portland was called the IPRC (http://www.iprc.org/) which is a member driven community space to make zines and independent publishing.  It has photocopiers, computers, typewriters and a whole bunch of other cool stuff to help zine makers, along with a zine library for people to borrow and classes to help people learn the skills.  A lot of people volunteer at this space whilst they are building their arts practice, and continuing to hopefully make a sustainable income.  Other artists I met are involved in activist groups, collectives where they work together to better sustain their art, or even work collaboratively. 

3.       Skills sharing

This is one of the most common activities emerging artists are involved with, from running ‘how-to’ classes in their local centre through to teaching formally at school or FE, or even HE.  Skills sharing is a way according to the artists of maintaining their own skills, helping others, perhaps learning new skills as students, and in many cases earning an income.  However, they did address some of the issues that have arisen include copying of their work by students, protecting their creative ideas and in many cases, how time consuming it can be.

4.       Experimenting

Whilst doing the art form they know and love, many artists experiment with different forms, try out new ideas, and sometimes even fall into completely different mediums.  It keeps the creativity and innovation going, it makes the experience interesting and engaging and it supports their enthusiasm for the existing art form.  One artist spent the interview with me constantly trying out new paints and pens, cutting pictures out and layering them on a piece of paper and generally trialling new ideas. Creativity is enhanced when people experiment and try new stuff.  A former visual artist I met one day found a hunk of wood by the road side and tried sculpting it, now she is a wood artist.  Another artist found that he was only physical able to make 50 copies of his zine because each copy took so long to make, so despite not being overly computer literatre made a PDF copy so that he could distribute the zine more widely.  Experimentation is necessary to encourage creativity, and whilst it may seem an indulgence for artists trying to find a way to eat and pay the rent, it may lead to developing a dance practice class, to the development of something new and interesting.

What do you do between jobs? How do you support the growth of your professional skills and abilities?  I would love to hear some ideas in the comments!

Topic setting in a vague and indefinite world

Problem definition is often considered the most important part of the research process. If we do not look for the reasons behind the problems our research may be misdirected and not solve the real problem. It may only provide temporary relief of the symptoms surrounding the problem – just like your headache tablet.

Proper problem definition ensures that you are asking the right questions. Asking irrelevant questions will provide meaningless information. The initial problem that you identify in a research project is likely to be a symptom of the problem rather than the actual problem. The symptoms alert us to the fact that the problem exists. As researchers we need to investigate further to determine what the problem actually is. How do I start defining my research problem/topic

1. Ask questions about what you know about the topic and what you don’t know
Example: I want to find out why pedestrian crossings are painted black and white? What do I know: they are black and white. The road is black and the paint is white. What I don’t know: Why white paint? Why not blue or pink or yellow? When did they start being painted in white? Were they always white? (In Australia, they used to be yellow – true story)

2. Define the problem further from your questions
What is the benefit of pedestrian crossings being black and white? Is it the most effective combination of colours?

3. Locate some sources of data (literature, theory, other research) about your topic
JOE MORAN (2006). CROSSING THE ROAD IN BRITAIN, 1931–1976. The Historical Journal, 49 , pp 477-496
Moran (2006) discusses the history of pedestrian crossings in the UK, with a focus on why they have evolved into the form, colour and usage we have today. You may need to do further research on your topic before you even start to get a final version of your topic. This process is called exploratory research. To define the problem correctly, you may need to conduct some exploratory research. This is research that helps you to discover the problem and what is involved in that problem. Some activities that might be considered exploratory research include;
* Experience survey – discussion with decision makers and interviews with industry experts
* Case study – examining what has happened in similar situations
* Secondary data analysis – including historical data, government reports

The purpose of exploratory research is to gain an understanding of the major components of the problem in order to define the problem correctly. Exploratory research will help you:
* Identify (and eliminate) symptoms
* identify the underlying problems
* develop research questions.

This will allow you to break the research problem into its key components; i.e. the key types of information that needs to be gathered. These key components can then be refined into research questions, which need to be answered in order to find a solution/s to the problem. A properly formulated research question will make the rest of the process flow more easily, because the objectives of the research project will be clear and you will understand exactly what information you need from your research. A question always needs an answer. Finally, a good little test about your research problem is whether it is;
Feasible – can you do it in the time allowed, do you have the resources and skills to complete the research
Interesting – Is it interesting enough to keep you going for the year? Is it interesting for anyone to else to read and use?
Novel – Is it unique and new? Has it been done before?
Ethical – Are you dealing with children? Privacy? Is your research ethical in that it has been collected without breaking laws and ensuring that the way you have collected the information complies with ethical principles
Relevant -Does the research meaning something? Can it improve practice? Can other people use your research to investigate further?

Check out this little youtube video on research topics…

and