• 1. I think its essential for the validity of the research that nothing about the questionnaire or interview questions is seen by people outside the research team before these tools are used.
  • Agreed by John 
    • 1. (validity) agreed;

• Jenny
  • John
    • Matthias
• This is absolutely great Matthias - but I think I have already completely messed it up. I had some difficulty with the different bullet points - so I ended up putting my input in 'blue'. Is this stying in the sandbox or being moved somewhere else?
• Blue is great! I don't think it is messed up. Little unevennesses (?) are IMO normal in wikis, and I probably added confusion by chosing the name "sandbox". 

  Another note on the wiki "garden": like a real garden, it grows sometimes organically rather than orderly and needs the notorious "wiki gardener" who both wariiy and courageous needs to use the secateurs, wich might upset the others. If you don't agree with such an intervention, just say it and it is easily reverted. In my experience it is much more difficult to anticipate such disagreement and try to avoid it in advance. Matthias

• I have chosen to be yellow in highlight, and it works great for me.  I think even George and Stephen would be awed by our efforts here!  May be we could showcase this in a an e-conference, once we have finished this research.  What do you think?

• Do you think we could have a special team title?  Any suggestions? This could be useful for future "press release". By John

• 2009-03-07: Since I start losing the overview over the older pages, it may well be that I forgot to answer a question even if it was directly addressed to me. In this case please don't get angry but just remind me of it.

  Another note regarding irony/ satire: I don't understand such nuances in English and therefore never use it. So if something I said will ever sound as if it is silly or ironical, please assume that it's only silly and never meant to be sinister. Just in case it will happen.

 

March 24 

• Hi Jenny, I want to respond here to your blog post http://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/wobbly-research/ So I think it is great that we 4 are not subject to this sort of pressure and can pick challenging inquiries that do nor guarantee success but promise the satisfaction to come closer to important aspects. It is certainly no incident that just open-minded people like you ask such questions about the reseacher's role, while the prolifics do not. (I remember Lilia Efimova's doubting thoughts, as well).

  In particular, the "objective" capability you listed is an unrealistic requirements in fields like ours where different styles play a role. Those who do not acknowledge this, end up in flawed and biased denials of learning styles.

  So I think we struggle much more and may fail, but it is definitely more rewarding for ourselves than another item in the publication list that is actually for a ridiculously tiny slice of the alleged body of "knowledge" that still pretends to be sound and evidenced and just forgets how biased and irrelevant most of this non-connectivist, binary, either-or knowledge is.

• Hi Jenny and Matthias,  I share with you on the thoughts about successful researchers.  It requires hardwork.  I think studying for higher degree (Master or Doctor Degree) requires a different mindset to that of achieving "excellence" as a scholar, though most people might have thought these to be the same.  I have shared my previous study and research experience with you Jenny, and I would like to share it further here with all three of you:

• As I have indicated to Jenny over Skype, I don't see it too difficult to write research papers based on theoretical models nowadays, as this is typical for most researchers.  Also, with the lastest technologies, one could locate research articles more easily.  Or even "copy" and "paste" in seconds.... and you could have papers even like a daily.... Did it sound too easy?  One could research based solely on 10 or 20 research articles, mix and match and then a mesh up to come up with a beautiful model or paper that summarises what some researchers have done in the past.  I would like to try!  But it seems that such research is merely a copy of plagiarised research.  When you copy from one person, you call it plagiarism, but when you copy the work from many persons, you call it a research.  

• My view may sound too difficult to swallow by scholars or researchers, but I think it may be reflective of reality.  

• I like to write in my own words rather than copying from others in most cases, but sometimes I have to cite the source, and that makes the research more credible.  That's why I found it intriguing, when I noted some research papers merely a copy of "what everybody else says" but not what the author says.  So, when I found that the researcher kept on quoting sources from elsewhere, I asked myself: "Is it another model of Chop Mix of researches?"  Am I too critical?  Or may be I am committing the same errors in my research?  But take a look at many research articles, doesn't it sound familiar? :-)

• I also found people using "old researches and famous philosophers" to back up their thoughts, which might be employed even by the brightest "researchers".  This becomes the "Einstein and Newton" plagiarised theory of Relativity and Newtonian Theory of "MetaPhysics" - that is Meta Meta Theory.  Sorry again that I seem to be rambling on this seemingly serious "Scientific Approach to Research", or the Complexity and Chaos Theory of Meta Learning which you would ask where all these come from?  I invent it here!

• Is it the way "Punk and Scholastic Theories" are presented amongst the bloggers, or even highly acclaimed articles in Scientific or Wired or educational journals?   New terms, new metaphors, new and emergent theories of theories are filling up the sky like clouds - CLOUD THEORIES, as I would like to call them. They come and go.  And some of these "meta-scientific, social constructivist or connectivist Voice of the Crowds" approaches may be ephemeral, mainly because they soon be replaced with another set of wonderful theories.   This is happening now, and you don't have to wait and see!  Are there any better ways of conducting research?

• So, what I think may be an alternative way of researching is: what we are doing now - by conducting objective empirical research, rather than the ivory tower theoretical research, where few people understands, and sounds so EinsteinIAN AND NewtonIAN that no one dares to argue or discuss.  Even Descartes, Aristotle, Socrates or Plato have come back ALIVE to debate! How? Through the quotation of their ideas and writings! They have become the shields of modern conversation and arguments, throughout researches.  They have become the backbones of critical thinking that may be true.  One may claim that there are also values in referring to past philosophies, but they are PHILOSOPHIES (with more than one answers) and could be true when you think and argue that it is true in the present context.  Also, I am finding conflicts amongst nearly all theories (learning theories) which sound mutually exclusive rather than inclusive.  Was it due to the theory itself or the interpretation of the theories?  I don't know! What could we do?

• Our approach is so new or emergent that I doubt if there are any researches done before on our collaborative research practice.  I could see a lot of individual researchers working alone at Masters or PhD levels, and collaborative researches conducted by University professors on an international level.  I wonder if researchers are willing to share their difficulties and problems while conducting researches: the lack of credibility in the research if it is done alone,  and the lack of leadership or community involvement on networking research with any of us - as this may damage their prestige and reputation.  What they always like to tell would be the success stories, solutions etc.   But is it reflective of reality?  I doubt!

• I have raised the following concerns and concepts in my blog or sharing with others on a number of occasions: Networking is at odd to organisational leadership and management (quite the opposite and lots of conflicts sometimes), and the conflict of individual learning to group or community learning (or research) - like what we are doing. No one knows how it works, until you are involved in it!  And I would say most experts or consultants might have consulted or advised based on their individual experiences only - because they might not have tried it, and they might not like it even (as an individual).  I think liberal educators prefer liberation in individual or informal learning, and that's why formal education is not their favourites.  For me, I tend towards liberal education, but when it comes to my actual work, I have to comply with the strict VET standards in the delivery of education.  That's why this research makes a lot of sense to me - to learn beyond the mindset of VET education.

• So, I am ready to challenge the basic beliefs on the above premises, and would like to see how it works, just like what we are doing now.  I don't see any failures that would arise, I only see opportunities of learning amongst us.  And I am pretty confident that we will succeed, despite all differences and similarities (of course the PASSION, the LEADERSHIP and the INTELLIGENCE - EQ, SQ, collective IQ) that brings us together in this research.

• I think most professors, researchers (PhDs, Masters, and consultants etc.) have been used to the habits of writing research articles based on: MORE is beautiful.  Why?  The tenure of professors and lecturers are gauged on the number of articles (peer reviewed in particular) they could publish in journals.  And the Masters and Doctors candidates on the progress of study and number of articles presented in conferences.  Who are seriously considering the "true value" of their researches on the academia, education, community, organisation or society?  The ivory towers are still there, and no one dares to ask why it is like that.  Also, who will be allowed to climb the ivory towers are decided by the ivory towers "leader" or "manager".  If you are not amongst the masters, you will not be allowed to raise your voice.  Is it what research is all about? 

• Here is a dilemma in our era of research:

  • 1. When you are adopting a sceintific approach to research, your findings may not be appreciated by some "researchers and educators, bloggers", and it may not attract too many hits (as such research is carried out behind close doors, or peer reviewed by scholars only), not too many people will bother to apply the recommendations based on such research.

  • 2. When you are adopting a free-lance "meta-scientific approach" - similar to blogging or publishing with e-books (the mix and match type of research), you may attract a lot of hits, but it also depends whether you could "argue" your views in public.  Please note that I am not trying to belittle the value of blogging - where blogging research is really of great value to me.  However, I think the salesperson technique could be more important than the academic "craftsmanship" technique when it comes to convincing people to believe in your research. 

• So, this is an era where networking is the phenomena, and networking seems to represent the TRUTH.  Is it true?  I really don't know! Learning and research in higher, open education is evolving in an "emergent" manner.  No one could predict the future, but you could witness its chaotic and complex nature, NOW!  I think I better write an article or book to reflect on this!  And I will quote all of you!  LOL  John 25/03/2009

 

March 31st

 

I just sent John an email which I think I should have shared.

 

Sorry if I sounded as if there were any reason to justify your

occasional "forest" views. I don't have any issues with them since

they are never obtrusive. (In the forest analogy, they are like

an eagle making his circles high above the forest and it is

fascinating to watch them and there is nothing wrong with it

unless we forget looking ahead of our feet and falling over a tree

log lying on the ground in our way.)

 

Similarly, your styles assessments. For us internally they are fine,

I just wanted to remind us of the hostile mood out there in academia

against them. Even Stephen is skeptical (if you read his yesterday's post

  http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=48386

linking to the Eide's). I think the dispute will even become sharper,

as the inability to provide empirical evidence for the learning styles

is turning into a reproach against the education system (and in my opinion,

it is mainly due to the unawareness of many teachers themselves about

their OWN cognitive styles).

 

I agree with you that our team and our research are great and unique.

But even if we are lucky and yield a little significant outcome,

I am afraid that there could be a major letdown imminent, if

we hope for major formal recognition about this. I have been working

long enough in academia for knowing that they will definitely not

grant such acknowledgement to outsiders/ newcomers who don't have

a long list of formal "merits" in renowned peer-reviewed boredom.

 

Think of Stephen's unapproved PhD, and all his work which is

not even acknowledged in formal papers, as I cautiously observed here

   http://x28newblog.blog.uni-heidelberg.de/2007/12/23/knowledge-roads/

I think it is even intellectually dishonest when they read his informal

publications, are definitely influenced by his thinking (which is obvious

in their writing), but nevertheless skip him on their reference list.

OK, the phenomenon is new which you described when you said

that you may have been unconsciously been influenced by some

previous readings (I forgot where it was). You forgot where you

were influenced but you acknowledged THAT you were influenced.

And I think this would be the new citation honesty. But established

academia does not feel like that.

 

So what I do hope for is, that we might get them thinking, or at

least help other, more open-minded researchers with our new

approach of balanced biases. If we may influence good people just

a little bit, that is yet very rewarding, isn't it?

 

1 April 09 (it happens to be the fool's day!) Now at 2:00 am in Sydney, Australia... Still writing by John

Matthias,  What a great and fruitful reflection that shines!  I resonate with your views on those strong debates, and the lack of empirical evidence out there on learning styles.  Even large scale study could be manipulative and misleading: I have taken the MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicators), and realised that they are based on studies of particular groups of people.  An understanding of styles could also be stereo-typing too, as we exhibit those different styles under  different circumstances. 

So, an interesting phenomenon is that those who sell flowers are also praising the fragrance of their flowers - does it look familiar to us? I don't want to be biased, as there are very nice and beautiful flowers (theories) which last sometime. 

I think we have now come to an era where theories are everywhere like flowers, and some of them without ROOTS!  These flowers (theories) will be ephemeral. 

I am prepared to embrace changes - or challenges that you mentioned above.  

 

I have sympathy on Stephen's PhD journey.  It seems that he hasn't been given the chance to explore and defend his philosophy.  The Chair was getting those ideas likely from him but has included them in the blog post as if it was his own, without giving the credits to Stephen.  It's sad. 

 

About that unconscious influence, I think what I have mentioned was the pollination concept.  I have since re-read paper on Connectivism by George and noted that he has mentioned pollination somewhere.  When I wrote my comments here, I normally put down whatever that came into my mind.   It was really a coincidence that such idea was also mentioned by George (couldn't remember whether he quoted from other writers as well in that Connectivism paper).  But I really want to acknowledge that citation (as I have read his paper long time ago, and has since forgotten).  

 

My metaphor of learning - based on digestive system could be applied here, as the concept of pollination had gone into my blood stream that enter the brain, so it just pollinated my brain nerve and has since left a "memory nerve" there.  

 

I have also used another metaphor since I was young, in that one has to egest (the old and obsolete knowledge) before you could ingest (new and emergent knowledge).  The emergent knowledge could be (navigating) in your vein and artery of your brain, your muscles (where motor skills are involved) and your senses and every organ and part of your body.... that make sense to your learning.  Again, I am not sure if there are any philosophers, researchers or educators who have used this as a metaphor.  But I am confident that I haven't read or noticed any so far!  Not to my knowledge in history?

 

I would like to share an important conclusion from neuroscience (source: the Manager's Pocket Guide to Emotional Intelligence by E.A. Sterrett, PhD 2000 pe 15 (my favourite book)

Chemical information substances, or peptides, regulate blood flow.  Blood carries glucose, the brain's fuel which is necessary for the brain to function.  Blocking of emotions through trauma or denial can slow down this process, depriving the brain of nourishment and leaving it less able to think, plan, and make decisions.

So my metaphor of digestive system could again be further explained using the Neuroscience approach....

 

Relating to recognition, I can assure you that what we are doing is as good as any Master or PhD research, and I don't see why we can't get the formal qualification using such an approach.  As I have indicated to Jenny in my facebook message, my previous 2 professors would like me to continue with the PhD studies back in the 90s.  So, I am confident that you could get a MPhil, MEd or PhD along this pathway!  Also, you might have found that sometimes PhD is just the starting point of the research journey - at least that is what typical universities are looking for when recruiting their teaching staff!  But, our research journey here has no end (if you like!)