Mackness, et al. (2010) identify contributions from autonomy, diversity, openness, connectedness and interactivity.  Data is from mixed methods that include a survey with 90 respondents and 22 responses to email interviews.  The previous blog explores autonomy in my teaching.  Diversity emerges in my teaching as students in different social constructs and locations in the globe share knowledge (UKPSF, V2).  The students as individuals and communities often have different ways of learning (UKPSF, V2).  To achieve the benefit of diversity I need to promote connectedness and interactivity.

teamwork_cartoonI am currently in negotiation with my teaching colleagues to agree collaboratively a Web 2.0 solution to the way we teach students.  We are currently discussing all forms of media that earlier blogs identify.  I am currently keen on trialing a communities’ forum, where as a colleague is keen on using more of a social-book-marking approach.  It is important for us to be consistent with students, so not to bamboozle them with technology.  Previous blogs explore how technology can cause discomfort for students.  It is important to me that when designing, planning and implementing any changes I have time to consider with colleagues the “implications of quality assurance and quality enhancement for academic and professional practice with a particular focus on teaching” (UKPSF, A1, K6).  Blogs from the previous module explore how, along with my peers, I evaluate the effectiveness of teaching (UKPSF K5).

In Hilton, et al.’s (n.d.) Wiley Study, similar to Salford, the official supported learning management system is Blackboard.  “Wiley made a specific choice to avoid this system because there was no way to offer broader invitations to students to participate in a Blackboard-hosted course” (Hilton, et al., n.d., p. 9).  In addition “even paying students who formally register for a course loose [sic] all access to course materials and discussions when the semester ends”.  The previous blog explores time benefits in using open access materials. “Open Education Resources can assist educators to reduce teaching preparation time, avoid duplication and concentrate their efforts on making students’ learning a more rewarding experience” (Bossu, et al., 2012) (UKPSF, K4, V3).

Open access materials are available for use and as a deliverable of my teaching.  Many postgraduate students I work with are internationally based (UKPSF, V1-2, V4).  Many of them only have limited access to electronic sources.  For this reason I design, plan and implement learning activities using materials freely available on the internet (UKPSF, A1-2, K1-4, V1-2) .  The open and accountable nature of Government’s, Professional Associations, Initiatives and the Judiciary makes this easy to an extent (UKPSF, V4).  Where documents are not freely available I try to make use of sources available to students after completion of their studies for example Dawsonera and The Construction Information Service.  Where I see room for improvement in my teaching is through making further use of YouTube and iTunes U.  If I use these sources to deliver some of the material to students, I can further focus my contact time to activities that promote connectedness and interactivity (UKPSF, K2-K4).

There is existing material available on YouTube and iTunes available for me to use.  I piloted use of some of the material in a recent on-line session.  I am delivering to students in both on-line and in person next semester.  Approximately 70 students are enrolled on the modules.  I intend to make use of the existing material in the on-line sessions.  Depending on the available technology I will also make use of the material in sessions I deliver in person.  This is something I need to investigate when room numbers are available.  Time is always a concern; however I intend to create freely available resources in YouTube.  The previous blog demonstrates how my students made similar material in module I am co-delivering at the moment.  I will direct students I teach to the resources.


Attwell, G., 2003. The personal learning environments – The future of eLearning?. ELearning Papers, 2(1).

Aviram, A. & Eshet-Alkala, Y., 2013. Towards a Theory of Digital Literacy: Three Scenarios for the Next Steps. [Online]
Available at: http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Aharon_Aviram.htm
[Accessed 20 10 2013].

Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M., 2004. Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivation Basis of Performance and Well-Being in Two Work Settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), pp. 2045-2068.

Becta, Department for Employment and Learning, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, JISC, Learning Skills Council, Lifelong Learning UK, Scottish Funding Council & Universities UK, 2009. Higher Education in a Web2.0 World. [Online]
Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/heweb20rptv1.pdf

Bossu, C., Brown, M. & Bull, D., 2012. Do Open Educational Resources represent additional challenges or advantages to the current climate of change in the Australian higher education sector?. Wellington, New Zealand, s.n., pp. 124-132.

Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I. & Wheele, S., 2006. Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6(41).

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. & Higgs, A. C., 1993. Relations betwen Work Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups. Personnel Psychology, Volume 46.

Churchill, D., 2009. Educational Applications of Web 2.0: Using Blogs to Support Teaching and Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), pp. 179-183.

Clark, W. et al., 2009. Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), pp. 56-69.

Dabbagh, N. & Kitsantas, A., 2012. Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), p. 3–8.

Deci, E. L., 1973. Paying People Doesn’t Always Work the Way You Expect it To. Human Resource Management, 12(2), pp. 28-32.

Fernet, C., Austin, S., Trepanier, S.-G. & Dussault, M., 2013. How do job characteristics contribute to burnout? Exploring the distinct mediating roles of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2), pp. 123-137.

Ferrari, A., 2012. Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks. [Online]
Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC68116.pdf
[Accessed 20 10 2013].

Gokhale, A. A., 1995. Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1).

Gunnell, K. E., Crocker, P. R., Mack, D. E. & Wilson, P. M., 2014. Goal contents, motivation, psychological need satisfaction, well-being and physical activity: A test of self-determination theory over 6 months. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Volume 15, pp. 19-29.

Hemmi, A., Bayne, S. & Land, R., 2009. The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), pp. 19-30.

Hilton, J. L., Graham, C., Rich, P. & Wiley, D., n.d. Using Online Technologies to Extend a Classroom to Learners at a Distance.

Ipsos MORI, 2007. Student Expectations Study. [Online]
Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/studentexpectations.pdf
[Accessed 20 10 2013].

Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A. & Gray, K., 2008. First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), pp. 108-122.

KM4Dev, 2010. IT Tools for virtual projects. [Online]
Available at: http://wiki.km4dev.org/Tools_for_virtual_projects
[Accessed 14 November 2013].

Mackness, J., Mak, S. F. J. & Williams, R., 2010. The Ideals and Reality of Participating in a MOOC. s.l., Proceedings of the 7 International Conference on Networked Learning.

Masona, W. & Watts, D., 2011. Collaborative learning in networks. PNAS, 109(3), p. 764–769.

McLoughlin, C., 2007. Listen and learn: A systematic review of the evidence that podcasting supports learning in higher education. Vancouver, Canada, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, pp. 1669-1677.

Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim, T.-Y. & Liu, Z.-Q., 2012. A Profile Approach to Self Determination Theory Motivations at Work. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Volume 81, pp. 354-363.

Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B. & Deci, E. L., 1999. Revitalization through Self-Regulation: The Effects of Autonomous and Controlled Motivation on Happiness and Vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 35, p. 266–284.

Ormond Simpson, 2008. Motivating learners in open and distance learning: do we need a new theory of learner support. Open Learning, 23(3), pp. 159-170.

Prensky, M., 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently. On the Horizon, 9(6).

QAA, 2008. The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Mansfield, UK: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education .

Rajaram, S., 2011. Collaboration Both Hurts and Helps Memory: A Cognitive Perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), pp. 76-81.

Rankin, M., 2009. Some general comments on the “Twitter Experiment”. [Online]
Available at: http://www.utdallas.edu/~mar046000/usweb/twitterconclusions.htm
[Accessed 20 October 2013].

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L., 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Pschology, Volume 25, pp. 54-67.

Siemens, G. & Tittenberge, P., 2009. Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. [Online]
Available at: http://umanitoba.ca/learning_technologies/cetl/HETL.pdf
[Accessed 2010 October 20].

Simpson, O., 2005. The costs and benefits of student retention for students, institutions and governments. Studies in Learning, Evaluation Innovation and Development, 2(3), pp. 34-43.

The Higher Education Academy; Guild HE; Scottish Funding Council; Department for Employment and Learning; Higher Education Funding Council for Englad; National Union of Students; Higher Education Funding Council for Wales; Universities UK, 2011. The UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education. s.l.:s.n.

Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P. & Wheeler, D., 2008. The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), pp. 987-995.

4/5 Supporting Students and Opportunities for Improvement

Ormond Simpson (2008) explores a number of theories to motivate students including self-determination, epistemological identity, achievement goal, self-perceived competence and the self-concordance model.  The self-concordance model aligns with Ryan’s and Deci’s (2000) taxonomy of human motivation and as such self-determination theory.  The theory in summary sets out four regularity styles of external motivation, namely external regulation, introjection, identification and integration.  Earlier blogs in the previous (LTHE) module identify the negative effects on motivation and health of the regularity styles of introjection and external regulation.  To some extent external regulation is applied upon my teaching, in that in order to achieve their qualification students must complete work in accordance with the university’s internal and external frameworks and regulations (QAA, 2008) (UKPSF, K6, V4).  Student deliverables I create have frameworks of knowledge, assessment criteria and grade descriptors (UKPSF, A1, A3, K1)

There is however an element of flexibility available to me during the delivery of modules.  The previous (LTHE) module identifies I deign, plan and deliver material constructively aligned with the student assessment (UKPSF, A1).  Over the last few years I deliver to online post graduate students.  Next year, my teaching time significantly increases, in that I will also be delivering face to face to undergraduate students.  Delivering to undergraduate students is a new challenge to me.  I intend to roll out a similar model to that I use with the postgraduates, which is perceived by my peers, the externals and students to be appropriate.  I understand that undergraduates will learn differently than postgraduates (UKPSF, K3).

There is case study research from both the United Kingdom and the United States that indicates improvements in retaining students is achievable through a proactive approach to student correspondence (Simpson, 2005) (UKPSF, V3).  Historically, my proactive approach to students involves the use of a virtual office (UKPSF, K4).  However, a decision has been taken by the University for not to operate the virtual office this year.  The facility will be offered to my students by other members of staff within the university.  In addition, I have used discussion boards successfully in the past (UKPSF, K4).  Similar to the virtual office however the University took the decision for budgetary reasons for me not to offer discussion boards in subsequent years.

To postgraduates I deliver sessions (or interactive lectures) using Blackboard Collaborate.  The reduction in the time with students outside sessions, means that I am going to need to be innovative with Collaborate to promote interaction (UKPSF, K4).  I see You-tube as having potential to improve communication.  I am little cautious concerning the use of the software, in that the University is the process updating an e-policy (UKPSF, V4).  I recently used You-tube in on-line lectures as part of delivery and the student constructively aligned deliverable.  The students’ prepare You-tube presentations.  In an on-line session the students listen and receive feedback on their presentations.  The students were intrinsically motivated by the presentations, which can be seen in their enthusiasm and work.  The approach will be a regular occurrence for the module.  Numbers make a similar approach difficult on the modules I teach next semester (UKPSF, K4).

Simpson (2008) indicates “that combining the three approaches of Self Theory, the Strengths Approach and Proactive Support into the one theory of” Proactive Motivational Support “may be more successful in supporting learners” (UKPSF, V3).  I see the key way to achieve this is through reflective practice, which the previous (LTHE) module identifies as a key component of the way I teach (UKPSF, A4).  Reflective practice also identifies with the “wider context in which higher education operates recognising the implications for professional practice” (UKPSF, V4).  I can see some benefits of other software such as WordPress for the students to record reflections.  I am currently thinking of ways to improve inter-peer support through learning communities.

I can see open access as being a great tool to save time.  See below You-tube video I created to explore open access learning and time.  Open access learning definitely needs further thought by me.

Bibliography in post 5/5

3/5 Collaborative Learning and Communities

Collaborative Learning in the Digital Age

Gokhale (1995) undertook an experiment to determine is collaborative learning enhances critical thinking.  The 48 participants are undergraduate students from Illinois.  The group split into two, namely an individual learning group and collaborative learning group.  The results demonstrate that the collaborative group performs better In relation to factual knowledge and critical thinking.  Later research confirms improvements in recall following collaborative group work (Rajaram, 2011; Masona & Watts, 2011).  Collaboration however has the potential to impair a group’s recall performance (Rajaram, 2011).

An online collaborative tool recommends E-mail, MS Office, Phone, Google Apps, Google Wave, Teleconference Tools, Chat tools, Wiki tools Discussion forums, project management tools, social book marking, RSS feed readers, online surveys, meeting planner and huddle (KM4Dev, 2010).  Peer reviewed sources also relate the software to collaborative learning (Boulos, et al., 2006).

fightingArea of activity A1 in the UKPSF requires an understanding of effective learning environments and approaches to student support.  Wheeler, et al (2008) undertakes an inductive study into wiki software.  There are 35 participants undertaking wiki’s regularly on an undergraduate degree.  Ownership emerges as a wiki concern.  One student finds discomfort indicating “I don’t like the fact that it’s anonymous. I want credit for what I have done” (Wheeler, et al., 2008, p. 6).  Such feelings relate to Ryan and Deci’s regularity styles of introjection (Ryan & Deci, 2000).  Other students indicate “I think I will cry if anyone changes my page!!!: I do like Wiki though, its [sic] very useful”.  Another student indicates “If anyone changes my page, I’ll kill them! Its [sic] odd I do feel a slight ownership to my page” (Wheeler, et al., 2008, p. 6) (UKPSF, V3).

Self-determination theory establishes that there are benefits to an alternative regularity style of integration.  The involvement of people in decisions relating to them improves performance and mental health including wellbeing (Deci, 1973; Baard et al., 2004; Campion et al., 1993; Gunnell et al., 2014; Fernet et al., 2013); and vitality (Nix et al., 1999); it also reduces the negative effect of external regulation (Moran et al., 2012).  Ryan (1995) relates integrated behaviour to the psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness.  Autonomy is a uncomfortable concept for some students indicating “this was too open for me. I would need a little more structure and feel for where I’m going with this. it’s enjoyable but I wouldn’t be mad about this” (Wheeler, et al., 2008, p. 6) (UKPSF, V3).

Establishing Learning Communities in your Own Practice

To date I have designed, planed and implemented to a certain extent the available tools on blackboard collaborate (UKPSF, A1-4, K4, V3).  The exception is in the use of wiki’s.  I will pilot wiki’s 2014/15.  I intend to promote learning communities in the next stage of teaching.  I will provide students with my LinkedIn details and promote discussion groups.  I intend to implement a group activity through Google documents next semester for a group of 80 postgraduates.  I like the idea of social bookmarking and need to consider this further and intend to implement this next year, I am just wondering what would be the best software.

PBL Group: Collaborative Learning and Community

The Problem Based Learning Group chose to discuss Blackboard Collaborate.  Table 4 is the groups list of collaborative features.  The table is from a group problem based learning activity undertaken using Google+.  In the groups’ presentation one person presented each feature.  Click here for a copy of the presentation slides: fdol_groupf_project2

Table 4: Blackboard Collaborate Features



Learning Materials

GP – I will discuss the materials the students need to participate in Collaborate session and compare them with other TEL tools.


Mags – I’ll focus on the synchronous written and spoken discussions that I made reference to in the chat box (my difficulty following both) I’ll check if there’s any literature on multi-tasking


Alex – I will critically review Collaborate as a collaborative learning tool and draw upon my recent experience of live streaming a lecture.

 I would like to start a whiteboard (as opposed to a poll) to ask people “How useful is Collaborate for your teaching”?

Discussion Board

Paul – I will discuss effectiveness and constructivism relating to discussion boards.


Not discussed


Not discussed

Bibliography in post 5/5


The UKPSF  requires “a thorough understanding of effective approaches to teaching and learning support as a key contribution to high quality student learning”.  This blog identifies teaching practice and opportunities for change to the way I teach.  A number of authors explore the benefits of social media to learning including that relating to the use of Twitter and Web 2.0 Technology (Rankin, 2009; Churchill, 2009; Clark, et al., 2009; Hemmi, et al., 2009; McLoughlin, 2007; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012) (UKPSF, K4, V3) .  Web 2.0 Technology includes Wikies, blogs, social networking, social book-marking and podcasts (McLoughlin, 2007; Churchill, 2009; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012).  Deliverables of social media include discussion, group assignments, peer review each other’s work, collaborate on projects and manage their digital portfolios (Churchill, 2009).

The Joint Information Systems Committee commission research establishing expectations of ICT (information communication technology) provision at universities.  Data is qualitative from small populations in Surbiton and Bristol.  Quantitative data is from an on-line survey of 501 participants in the UK between the ages of 16 and 18.  A Committee of Inquiry in the Changing Learner Experience interpretation of the data is in Figure 2.  The rapid nature of ICT results in both students and the technology evolving since the collection of the data.  However, Figure 2 indicates two issues with the technology (UKPSF, K4, V3).  The first issue is familiarity, which relates to a conservative thread in literature (Aviram & Eshet-Alkala, 2013), which is easily overcome through training.  The second issue involves comfort in utilisation.  The students may find a lack of comfort in being unfamiliar with using particular electronic source as learning tool.  They may also be uncomfortable by the fact that social media provides an audit trail of their private activities.  For example, students although familiar with the resource, feel uncomfortable with the use of Facebook.  Therefore, to prevent unnecessary stress to the students, I need to consider implementation of social media to protect students privacy (UKPSF, A1, A2, A4, K4, V1, V2)

Figure 2

Figure 2: Students Degrees of Comfort with Using Technology at the Start of their Courses*

*(Becta, Department for Employment and Learning, et al. 2009)

Dabbagh & Kitsanta (2012) set out “a framework for using social media to support self-regulated learning in Personal Learning Environments”.  A number of authors relate Self Learning Environments to eLearning (McLoughlin, 2007; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Siemens & Tittenberge, 2009).  The creation of personal learning environments is important to the distance-learning students I teach (UKPSF, A4, K3).  The Dabbagh & Kitsanta (2012) framework is a matrix, which reconciles levels of interactivity with social media.  There are three levels of interactivity (1-3).  Table 3, relates Dabbagh & Kitsanta’s framework to my teaching and provides a series of future actions for me to undertake (UKPSF, A1, A2, A4, K2, K3).

Table 3 Social Media to Support My Students Self-regulated Learning




Opportunities for Change



Implement discussion boards on the UoS’s Collaborate

This item requires further thought



Implement in future.

Google Calendar


Not appropriate for students I teach.

YouTube or Flickr


Students I teach prepare and share YouTube videos

Incorporate UTube into my delivery

Social networking sites


Connection with students in LinkedIn

Identify relevant Linkedin communities for Students to join.

Social Bookmarking


Bookmarking is one directional.

Implement social book marking.

Bibliography in post 5/5

1/5 The Digital me Past, Present and Future

When exploring literature in digital literacy Aviram & Eshet-Alkala (2013) identify two basic strategies, namely the conservative and the skeptical.  Conservative relates to ‘skills are just skills’.  The skeptical relates to: (a) learning styles and multiple intelligences; and (b) “the clash between the modern book-based and the post modern [sic] digital cultures”.    Therefore, there are two elements to consider in relation to ‘digital me’.  Firstly in relation to how my digital skills develop and secondly, the digital technologies in my teaching.  The UKPSF after all, requires me to demonstrate an understanding of “effective learning environments and approaches to student support and guidance” and an understanding of “the use and value of appropriate learning technologies”.  Later blogs explore digital ways of working in relation to learning styles.  Table 1 employs work by Ferrari (2012) to outline my digital competence (UKPSF, A1-4, K2-K4).

Table 1: My Digital Competence (Based on Ferrari, 2012)

Competence Area


My digital literacy

My Digital Teaching

Information Mangement

identify, locate, access, retrieve, store and organise information

Filesanywhere, skydrive, dropbox, wordpress, blackboard (as a tutor)



link with others, participate in online networks & communities, interact constructively

Linkedin, Collaborate, Elluminate Plan

Collaborate, Elluminate Plan

Communication and sharing

communicate through online  tools, taking into account privacy, safety and netiquette

Linkiedin, Twitter, WordPress

Collaborate discussion board

Creation of content & knowledge

integrate and re-elaborate previous knowledge and content, construct new knowledge



Ethics & Responsibility

behave in an ethical and responsible way, aware of legal frames

Unsure of legal frames

Evaluation & Problem-solving

identify digital needs, solve problems through digital means, assess the information retrieved

Nvivo, SPSS, Google


Technical operations

use technology and media, perform tasks through digital tools

Explore in later blogs

1Prensky (2001) explores the concept of two types of people, namely ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital immigrants’.  The ‘digital natives’ represent people who grew up with technology; with ‘digital immigrants’ being born prior to the new digital world (UKPSF, V1-2, V4).  Later research establishes ‘digital natives’ as students born after 1980s (Kennedy, et al., 2008).  Both myself and many of the students I work with are ‘digital immigrants’.  During my time at Primary School Computers were a bit like the one in the Photo, the internet was not part of my learning.  During my high school years computers were slow and generally for word processing purposes. My digital literacy has come through work.

As part of a problem based learning group I develop a summary of my digital literacy which is below.

Time, Time, Time – I never have enough time to do the things I want to. I undertook a Wikipedia search to find out how many social networking websites exist, I found 200. Each of the social networking sites have never ending pages of terms and conditions, which I can never have time to read. Am I going to have to hand over my kidneys to one of these sites in years to come? To be honest I haven’t a clue what is in any of the terms and conditions. At a approximate guess, I have signed up to 10. I try to keep a record of the sites I have signed up to. However at times I forget and last week I found that, I have signed up to the same one twice.

Information technology including social media provides me with a fabulous tool to learn, teach and socialise. I hear people comment that face-to-face contact is lost with social media. I also hear people saying online courses restrict the development of bonds between peers, which supports learning. In contrast to the comments, I see students and peers forming strong bonds in digital environments. The fact of the matter is that the electronic revolution is making the world smaller, opening people’s minds and generating understanding across borders. The international perspective is essential to understanding the nature of the world.

Click here for Problem Based Learning Group Slides

Bibliography in post 5/5

Professional Discussion

Lego Model from First Week

LTHEJan13 week 1

The Lego model from week one is a good starting point for this discussion.  At the start of week one, myself and other students on the PGCAP programme were asked to construct Lego models. The parts of the Lego model are selected partially due to them being already constructed. Someone else had constructed much of the model before I had started. I wanted to demonstrate the importance of other peoples (tacit) knowledge in my personal development. I feel the professional discussion was used to develop soft communication skills opposed to hard skills associated to explicit knowledge. The task offers development through a social constructivist approach, which is associated (at least by some authors) to the work of Vygotsky. Vygotsky observed in his work that engagement enhances knowledge development (Atherton J S 2011).

Lego Model in Final Week

#LTHEJan13 week 10 Professinal Discussions

The Lego model is a wall constructed with different colour bricks.  Each brick representing a different part of the knowledge gained in my short time of teaching as well as the different areas of practice of my peers that I have been able to experience on the PGCAP.  Some of the bricks have not been built into the wall yet, representing the journey I have yet to travel.  The development between the first and the second model relates to a widening of my knowledge.  I felt that the use of Lego is interesting and wonder if data is being collected as part of a research project.

I think it is slightly unethical to ask the PGCAP students to comment on the way they are assessed as part of their summative assessment, and it is not something I would do with my students.  I like the overall concept of the discussion.  The discussion started late and I think this had an impact on the duration we had to discuss my learning.   I think if I were to implement the process into my teachings, which I could through a virtual office, I would need to be careful to make sure I had enough time to do it adequately.  I think the observers’ feedback is limited due to time constraints.  We did however have an interesting discussion on peer support, constructive alignment and the use of research in teaching.  The chap relating to my experience also feels that research is a valid and interesting way to discuss a subject area.

Works Cited

Atherton J S (2011) Learning and Teaching; Constructivism in learning [On-line: UK] retrieved 3 March 2013 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/constructivism.htm