It was great to find a room full of people with the same worried looks on their face...
We did a few group exercises discussing our inquiry title, aims/objectives,ethical issues,our literature and data collecting tools. Vocally expressing the project helped many of us clarify issues that we were subconsciously ignoring..
Paula Nottingham re-inforced the importance of clearly planning out what, how and when we were going to complete the work on our inquiry in time spam we have.
I left the campus session feeling ready to finish my introduction as I had a better understanding on the consistency of our critical reviews.
In the two weeks I had before the next session I..
- Printed out a calender and worked out exactly when I was going to do what.. with lots of colours to keep me entertained!
- Booked and carried out all of my interviews with a variety of participants.
- Read my literature and wrote down lots of reviewing notations...
Trent park,Mansion, Cold room...19th October 2011
Feeling a little bit more on top of things but still full of queries..
We sat with Adesola in a circle to discuss the 'Professional Artefact' Part of our final dissertation. Here are some points I made during the seminar.
- It's about finding the best way to explain what we found out.
- An embodiment of our questions, follow the thread to NATURAL CONCLUSION.
- It's not an add on its part of the whole process
- There are different types of formats to present findings. Like,documents in the style of eg. Doing if your inquiry was about young education you could present your findings in a children's picture book.
Where as when spoke about the word formatted critical review.. it is the reportative form.
- It combines our experience with wisdom presenting cohesive arguments, critical thinking, comparing opinions and authorities.
What Next??!?!?
One of my main discussions with my advisor was how I couldn't really see the difference between the two segments of my critical review(evaluation of process and analysis of findings) it sounds obvious but! I was finding it hard to not write about my finding when evaluating my interviews etc. It turns out I had the wrong meaning of the word findings, the findings aren't just the data collected e.g my interviewees outcomes or literature reviews, because I found gaps in the knowledge from both sources. My analysis is why the gaps have occurred and how I can fill them.
Therefore before worrying about typing out my evaluation of my inquiry process I need to compare and contrast my findings in detail and take a critical approach to be clear of what I have discovered and learnt from the process.
Here I go.....
Hope this post has helped some people that couldn't make the campus sessions!?x
Great summary. One comment though: the analysis is why you think gaps have occurred and how and why you think people have constructed their ideas. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR CONCLUSION is how you can help fill them. You are not expected to necessarily be able to solve the issues you research. the importance is that you look at the problem in a new way (because you are a unique person) and that opens up the question for everyone. But you can offer what you think a solution could be. Let me know if this makes sense - maybe email me if you have more questions. It's good to have these discussions on the blog too so other people can join in. But I mean email if you have a advisor / advisee moment!
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work
Adesola