interview - wordpress.com€¦ · web viewq: i was thinking, i was trying to think which article...

Interview:BD_Connectivism_12_08_11

Participants:Q: InterviewerF: Female ParticipantsM: Male Participants

(Note: Gaps in transcript due to talking over each other and background noise. Due to participants speaking to quietly, quickly or mumbling some content was unable to be understood. Some words/names have been transcribed as sounded)

(Recording started half way through sentence)

Q: We assume to have a sort of overlapping sub set of people at the different meetings and just, yes reminding people that we do record these sessions and the transcripts go up on a blog, I hope that doesn’t stifle any disadvantage for discussion, just so we get that, from there as well-

(Talking over each other)

Q: Yes so hopefully that's good enough. Let’s start in Bathurst-

M: … I'm in Bathurst-

M: James Grant, I'm Faculty of Education.

Q: Yes …-


M: Albury-

F: Judy M… … teaching services.

Q: Great and here Lincoln-?

M: Oh Lincoln Gill, learning and teaching services.

Q: Oh can you see Lincoln, I've just realised we haven’t checked our positions.


F: We can see Lincoln.

Q: Yes so we’re all good?

M: … Avlon – learning and teaching services.

M: Barney Dalgarno – School of Education.

BD_Connectivism_12_08_11

F: And I'm Lauren Carlson, I'm working as a Research Assistant.

F: Penny Stevens – School of Education.

Q: Good on you, we’ll just bring the others in as they come in.


M: Speaking of which.

Q: Is that you Jackie by any chance?

F: Yes it is.

Q: Hi.

F: Can you hear me okay, the new digital phone … pretty crappy.

Q: You're loud and clear, can you hear us okay?

F: Yes … pretty good.

Q: Okay so you’ve sort of missed the intros but we've got Lincoln, Will, myself, Lauren, Penny here in Wagga – Janet and Jenny in Albury and Alan and James in Bathurst.

F: Sure.

Q: I was thinking, I was trying to think which article would be the best to discuss first and I thought maybe if we did the Chris Deed article first, because in a way it sort of sets us up, I think in my view it doesn’t, sort of has a deeper coverage of traditional pedagogies if you like than the other articles, so it sort of gives us sort of framework to start with. And then go, get into the connectivism stuff and, as we’re discussing the George Semen’s article, we can bring in other readings on connectivism. Does that sound like the way to go?

M: Yes.

F: Yes that's a great idea.

Q: So the way we did this last time which I thought worked okay, was to sort of do a sort of two round process for each of the articles. So first of all just go around the room and have each person maybe pick out one or two main points that they found interesting in the article. And so that if we go around the conference we sort of get a collective sense of the key things coming out of the article, and then move in to sort of critical discussion after that. so if you're happy with that, silence is agreement, lets, and I guess if you haven’t read the articles, but you then, feel free to pass in that initial phase and then bring your arguments into the critical discussion instead. Okay a volunteer to go first in talking about the main points from the Chris Deed article, let’s go Bathurst first then.

M: Apparently I'm going first-

Q: … good.


M: Deed article, on page 55 of the article, I read it quite heavily last night and this is the one that … that I thought is that the connectivism ones tries to answer is that is learning by a media physically inferior to learning face to face. And it just through that those sort of learning styles and preferences are changing and can, is there a hybrid, you know a utopian hybrid type learning environment for which we can hope to achieve and that sort of thing, so I thought that sort of stuck out, most out of the whole of it. I mean that whole different types of learning styles with an appropriate learning technology I thinks quite old hat, but the question at the end in which he asks, is it as a whole objectively is ICT or media as he puts it here, inferior to face to face learning? I think that's a, I think it's a good question to raise.

Q: Alright, Alan?

M: I like this it's a good backdrop for a conversation about theory I think, that sort of matches the territory. I think, the other thing I would say is that I think the separation of theory and technology use is still a feed through throughout this, whereas I think that the kind of next generation of techn… (Background Noise) will have a … hard to separate out the theory from the design from the technology as a cognitive tool. So, but that's not his intent. Anyway I thought it was good and it was good to see him revisit that the …, I remember being in one of the conferences where Cosna was weighing out that position on that … that I can … (Unable to understand) in the 80’s or whenever. And weighing out that argument about that, the media affect versus the learning affect and that's all very interesting and I think this is a good … this is the sort of a thing that would good for the students to read if they're engaged in a course on theory foundations of ICT.

M: Yes I was pleased to see that debate brought up just because I think it's one that's worth highlighting … for just, in terms of, some people say things that you could sort of, from what they're saying it sounds as though they're in, they think that the technology will cause learning to occur. And I think it's worth explicitly having that debate at some stage along the way to sort of get to the point where well I guess, work out where you stand on that. I mean to me it's pretty obvious that it's the learning tasks that cause learning and that technology can afford certain learning tasks, but the technology itself doesn’t cause the learning. But it's a good old debate, I was, I wasn’t lucky enough to be in the states at that time Alan, but I was on the IT forum email list when it was of the, when that debate was being had, so-

M: And you're just probably not old enough Barney, that's the-

(All laughing)

Q: Janet or Jenny, would you like to say something about the Deed article?

F: I will because-


F: Janet will because I haven’t read it but I just, I mean you know … into the conclusion, I think that's a lovely … little conclusion that,


is that there's no silver bullet for anything and that with those you have to be thinking about particular sorts of students and what's appropriate for them or for the learner. So that's all I want to say.

F: Yes … (Unable to understand) picking up, but that's definitely the essence of it. Yes certainly I … page 55 is, was the stand out part for me and in the … was learning and I remember reflecting on C… and Cosna’s debating it, it would have been about 1991 during my masters and writing a reflection on that. and because I … to really thought much about … seeing them, you know hadn’t really thought about it, about that, but I was coming from Africa, I remember the tone, the reflection was that well absolutely … media does influence learning because if you don’t have a grocery truck as … happens in Zimbabwe, you don’t get your groceries and you don’t get your nutrition, so … (Laughing) you take that attitude-. But certainly, you know here we just have to paint our grocery trucks all sorts of different colours to get the market, whereas there … with more basic, you know you had one or you didn’t, or if you had one, you hoped you had petrol at least. So it was a bit different but I think sometimes it's easier, we feel as though we planned to be in that position if you do or don’t have the media. But certainly, you know when you go, the different technologies for different types of learning and the different pedagogies and so on … sort of feels good to refresh ones memory on those because certainly if it does come down to no silver bullet but if you do understand the importance’s of that particular technology and I guess, for me that's putting the brain into the next phase of CSU. You start thinking about, you know where we still have an input into the design of our next phase systems and so on, you know that's very much a key point to be bearing in mind, so I think that that's, those are the key things. and the, on that page 55 is … (Unable to understand) in theory to doing it face to face, I think that paragraph should perhaps be sent to a few people around the …BC level … because it's really, yes because, yes … our policy and some suggest that perhaps it is, but then in the same … you’ve also got the policies which are saying we need more … we need more online, we've got the e-student experiences … happening. So very much this, I guess I come from the, more on the management side than on the academic side, but I guess that's just how we apply to the literature.

Q: Thanks, Penny would you like to go next?

F: What this calls me to do is actually rethink my definition of an ICT. I'm sorry that sounds really strange and a bit back, but three steps back before you go forward. But I'm recently using technological tools in my teaching and I'm not wondering whether I classify them as ICT tools or not. I'm thinking about things like data loggers which I've made an effort to increase their usage of in my classroom as a technological tool, but now I'm wondering are they an ICT tool? Because if you read how he defines ICT, it's, it truly is about communication not about data gathering or evidence gathering or, does that make sense?

M: Uh huh.

F: And I, I'm … wondering I question whether a data log is an ICT.

M: I think the T-pak framework is interesting one for looking at the different roles of technology in learning. Like if you think about within the T-pak framework, the overlap between content area and


technology where you have technologies that are used as part of the doing of activities within the content area, like science data loggers for example, as distinct from technologies which are used as tools for learning which might sit within the T-P areas of a TPC areas, if you know what I mean. And I guess he’s focusing on technology as a tool for learning, but ignoring the fact that technology can have other roles within the learning situation.

F: It was completely not there when he, I mean even, from the very first page when he says, you know uses a saw hammer and a screw driver to construct an artefact. So it's that very much that technology as tools to communicate in various formats, multi media formats and I was just thinking, well I use technology in a wider context than that. am I now no longer able to call that an ICT, so yes.

M: Well no, I mean you just; it just shows that the article has a narrower definition.

F: Yes.

M: Interesting.

F: Unfortunately that was on the first page so it skewed me from the reading there on in.

(All laughing)

Q: Yes, Lauren.

F: Sorry I don’t have any …-


Q: That's okay, I said you're allowed to pass so that's fine, Will?

M: I like that fact that the, rather than suggesting that behaviourism was not worth considering or kind, or a lower level that it was appropriate for particular sorts of tasks, and these could be a function of, well important to building to higher level …. So you know if you … or in a language you need to actually just remember words, that that's a part of moving towards a higher level.

F: I … validated that you know it can be … sometimes you can be constructed as other times, yes, is that what you meant?

M: Yes basically.

M: … (Too faint)-

Q: Lincoln?

M: Yes well I've been doing a bit of reading in some similar areas of late, in the last couple of months, and reading through this one made me have a think about, oh I made connections whether an article by David Johansson, where he’s comparing behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. And he’s actually got a diagram representing or depicting possible uses for each of the paradigms, and it was in the


similar vain to what this Dean fellow was talking about. And it also made me think about the T-pak model which Barney’s mentioned as well, and talking about technological and pedagogical content knowledge and the, I guess putting forward the idea that different technologies and pedagogies maybe suitable for different content areas. And so I was sort of seeing how those three notions would come together in the one and were thinking about how they would apply in the university context. And you know I didn’t agree with 100% percent what was in there but most of it seemed to resonate and flow pretty well, and a general observation that it was useful to have clear and concrete examples of uses of technologies that aligned with a particular pedagogical approach or an educational paradigm-

Q: Yes it's an interesting question about how that works.

M: Yes so anyway … around that’ll-

Q: Yes, Jackie?

F: Yes look everyone's raised a few interesting things that I found in that. I want to … (Unable to understand) students … educational technology because the first assignment they do is on being … in relation to …T’s and I've found this was a really lovely … that … quite structured … behaviour, so … sort of areas that … very nicely sort of morphed them all into, or pulled them … into the issues and … complexity of, you know … of ICT a learning theory of some sort. Their … were I found interesting from my perspective … also with my students of course is the last … where they … power and adversity and is what I found teaching … teachers … students, they tend to, maths teachers … instead of maths approaches and pick spreadsheets and the like, which is valid in one sense but they don’t broaden their, they use the technology or the pedagogical approaches to introduce more diverse approaches with their students … for their students, students who might not be that way inclined. So that was the bit that I found sort of quite interesting … (Unable to understand) overview, but that, the idea that we can use all the tools and their affordances but then the greater pedagogical approaches that as learning theory that has validity in certain … methods and created a bit of a match up with all those approaches to suit the student. I think … brings you to the point where I realise how complex that is, it would be really good for my students.

Q: Yes I thought also that I liked the fact that it, later in the article he sort of encouraged a more … sort of an approach. I might launch into … (Laughing) enough, any new bits to add, I think from what other people have said it's the key points. But I, it seems to me that you have beliefs about knowledge, …omological beliefs, beliefs about the way people were. And I don’t know whether it's true to say that you’ll adopt different beliefs about knowledge for example in different circumstances. You might have beliefs about learning which are content areas specific or learning outcomes specific, I think people learn such and such a thing in such a such way. I learn, I think people learn this particular type thing in a drill and practice way, well I think people learn this particular type thing in an exploratory way. But I don’t know whether it's true to say that when you're doing that you're shifting from a behaviourist view of learning to a constructivist view of learning, I sort of dispute that a little bit. I think one of the problems this article has and the other one also does, they sort of draw


on some similar references, is this mixing up of what I see the …mological views and the views of learning, I see constructivism and objectivism say as a continuum about … in views about knowledge, rather than about learning as such. There are sort of consequences of a constructivist view of knowledge for learning, but I think when you mix up the views of learning and the views of knowledge, you get into a slightly messy sort of area. And I guess the worst case scenarios that you then pick where you stand and say, so that restricts my range of teaching approaches because I have to use teaching approaches consistent with my particular view of learning. I don’t know, I should hear what other people think of that and please start diving in and critiquing the article from other angles as well.

M: I think they're all important points and I'm trying to, I'm attempting to put together a resource to, for us to use for professional development amongst the ed’s that's looking at this range of paradigms, but it's also, yes cutting across how we under, what we understand knowledge to be. And I've been looking at things like situated learning, authentic learning, all these sorts of things as well as these various paradigms. And they are important questions and they are important things for practitioners to consider and work through. And if I'm, oh just going onto one sort of critique, he puts, I'm assuming Chris is a he, it maybe a she-

Q: … is a he, yes.

M: I'm aligning, or aligning the LMS with the behaviours approach, I think that's just a bit of a general statement in that, well some LMS’s are quite set up to be very teacher centred, it's all about transmission of information, whereas not all LMS’s are like that. Perhaps in the past that was the case and-

Q: I'm not sure if his LMS is what we call an LMS to be honest.

M: It's, well-

F: I had that … wasn’t quite sure what he meant by that.

M: Yes, some people label … LMS but … that are, a CLE - a Collaborative Learning Environment, the new one, the open academic environment. So there's something different there but I think general statements like that can kind of bring you unstuck a little bit. And in amongst the constructivist instructional technologies on page 51, right at the top line, it says learning involved mastering authentic task. Mastery learning, if I was just grabbing that term sits more with behaviourist notions and to master anything kind of implies that there is some finite depiction of knowledge, which I don’t know that it fits so well with constructivist ideas.

Q: Alan I'd love to hear your response to that because I've heard you talk about mastery learning at times.

M: Yes I guess my response, and this is not a criticism of the … (Unable to understand) a little bit … the article, it more builds on what you were saying and what Lincoln’s been talking about. There's that, I think that, a theory’s not similarly in it's relation to ICT’s where we’re saying oh I do this – it seems to be a transaction that's very


operant so therefore it's behaviourist in nature. And I don’t think it's a badge either, I think that the power of theory is explanatory and I think the really … it lets a reader enter the first step of saying, okay well here's a range of theories that have influenced that way we view the world of ICT. But, and I guess I'm bridging a little bit into comments about the second article, the real power of theory is in the way that you could set up ideas and hypothesis and test them, and see whether they actually inform, the results of those tests inform our understanding and the way people learn. So all of these theories have made a wonderful contribution to doing that because they’ve helped us to understand … perspectives. I think though, going back to my original remark is that our up taking technology in at the ICT areas often reminds me of the way my children talk which is, they say like in about, a few times in every sentence. And in ICT we tend to … that's like behaviourism right, so yes that's the way that works. And I think that the real opportunity goes to something that P… exploring, and she’s saying hang on I don’t think that I'm badging my work with ICT around a particular perspective, I think that we should be deeply embedding theory in that design of ICT tools or methods or strategies or whatever. And then testing, using our theoretical practice to test out those theoretical principles and then working out the leverage-able value of the ICT and their process. so that's a bit wordy, I can explain that like in more detail when we talk about the other article, when it's my turn. But I guess in summary what I would say is that really deeply considering theory for me, I like what Thomas … says about theory. He says that theory is not just about the big ideas or concepts, it's about the systems, methods and tools that are required to test those ideas out. And for me that's the way we need to travel and I think that Chris… argument was a really good starting point for that journey, and I'm sure we can match up a lot of the things we’re doing around those theoretical perspectives. But I think that the real step is to start to build on its explanatory power.

Q: Yes and the tricky thing with anything like that in education, from my point of view is that you set up an experiment say that's designed to test whether, you know whether an exploratory learning approach is effective for learning Newtonian Physics. And you could design it really well and demonstrate that that approach works, or you could design it really badly so that it's still an exploratory learning approach but it's not scaffolded well, it doesn’t take care of prior learning, it uses poor, uses media in poor ways, doesn’t draw on Mayer’s principles there and upset, it creates extra cognitive load in using the interface, and no learning occurs. And neither really demonstrates, well one, I suppose if learning does occur it demonstrates that it's possible for learning to occur using that approach, but it doesn’t demonstrate that it always will. And if learning doesn’t occur again, it doesn’t disprove that approach as being valid. To me that's the tricky thing, applying, in actually trying to validate learning theories empirically.

M: It's also Barney and Al, you talk a lot about the operational space of those sort of theories, but I mean at what point, you can't fully analyse and empirically analyse the cognitive spaces. So you know as you say like, but then it has to be some form of vagueness there eventually, you can't fully have a summative and say well yes this learning theory has completely nailed it in terms of cognitive and


operational … space. So I mean at what point do you have to let go and say, well this is our general consensus and we can't go much further?

M: Yes I guess, what I would say about that would be you, we’re running very quickly to end game of ethicacy, but theories, all these theories are deeply imbued with very, very specific notions around beliefs and the transactions of learning. And what I would say is that we should be investigating those, so I think in some ways you answered the question Barney with what you said, and that is that if I was looking at a learning theory and it's relationship to ICT tools, I'd want to be digging deeply into things like cognitive learning and seeing whether in fact that that was, this was a s…. so take research on cognitive … that says that, when people do, teachers particularly, that the cognitive load of the teacher, of the basic teaching task is so demanding that, and there's so many factors that influence teaching that people go back to old habits very, very rapidly when they're faced with any extraneous demands in the classroom situation. Well just right there there's about, like a zillion things, and I know this is an area that you know a lot about, that … to investigate if you were piecing together a theory. I don’t think that it has to rush to the … kind of contention, I think what we want to do is explain things more deeply and more effectively by looking at the transactions of the theories. And … like general when we talk about the other article I'll give very practical examples of what I mean by that.

M: One of the things, you look at the, some of the research around professionals making judgments in their practice, and I think there is, often the experienced practitioner is not mentally referring to these specific concepts. And so for me I wonder, I mean I think there's good reason for having a background and understanding … some of these, but when it comes for the decision about how they're going to design some task, then I don’t think a good practitioner is often always referring to “Yes well I'll do it a behaviourist way or a constructivist way” or something like that, they just think, oh yes … this will help their learning this way, this will-. Even if it's kind of integrated in their mind then, so I'm not sure sometimes of the value of separating it out and referring to the particular theories specifically.

F: See I find value in separating it out because when I allow my students to identify against a paradigm they can then question their own paradigm and know that there are others. So if they're very narrow in their views of how teachers teach because they’ve only experienced themselves being taught by a particular paradigm, in a particular paradigm, then they don’t know what they don’t know, does that make sense? so I, the simplicity of, I know it is simplicity, but the simplicity of breaking it into three paradigms for me helps me to challenge, why are you doing it that way, do you know there are other ways of doing?

M: And what the likely results might be of that kind of approach-

F: Yes or I'm doing it this way and now you’ve put, now explain to you why I'm doing it this way, there's a theory behind why I'm doing it this way.

M: I reckon there's a tendency sometimes, you know you begin, a student teacher or an academic with no education background will typically begin


with a sort of an intuitive of that, ideas on learning and use a range of approaches. They might then learn some learning theories and sometimes as an initial, like an initial tendency then to start reducing their range of approaches, because they learn that behavioural isn’t bad, constructive isn’t good, that approach is behaviourist therefore bad, this approach constructive is therefore good, and so start reducing. And then once they reach a sort of a third level, they then begin to broaden their range of approaches again and start to see their approaches as being things they need to be flexible about depending on the particular learning outcomes they're trying to achieve. But it's nice to be able to, if you’ve got the terminology for talking about the learning theory; it helps for a richer engagement I reckon, rather than just using intuition.

F: And I agree with that narrowing, because for example the text I used in my … primary pre-service course is teaching science constructively. And so that they’ve completely said this is the way to teach science, you know best practice. And I think well how can I justify that if they don’t know all the others and I got excited by this idea of a third, or the fourth one perse-

(All laughing)

F: For a moment, thank you.


M: Sorry-


M: I was just going to say I think what you're saying about having a theoretical framework is really important. I forget the American psychologist that said there's nothing more practical than a good theory. And when people-


M: Think about their teaching they, it you know it's, if you don’t have a framework and multiple frameworks to look at it, which is what you guys are saying, it's a little bit like Goldilocks you know, it's too hot, too cold or just right-

(All laughing)

M: But if you have a theoretical framework to look at it, you have a … for investigation and reflection that will allow you to use that language that you're talking about Barney and explore it from the sort of problem solving, very practical problem solving perspectives that are necessary, go beyond the temperature of the porridge.


M: I think sometimes, I mean glad to hear you’ve mentioned the intuition but even after learning the learning theories, that the intuition can be a guide. So the intuition suggests one way of going about it and then the explanation in terms of the learning theory comes afterwards-


M: Often, yes-


F: Oh absolutely.

M: And you intuitively choose the learning theory that you subscribe to to some extent.

M: Well you kind of rationalise it in terms of-

Q: Look I wouldn’t mind giving Jackie a chance to talk because I know how hard it is to come in via telephone because you can't tell whether you're interrupting.

F: There's … I'm just enjoying listening to the conversation because it remind me of my PhD on trying to get my head around theoretical perspectives about what I'm doing. And so just listening to the argument about, what … all those things that you were saying, and Alan to about good theory being practical and what are you applying the theory for? Particularly in relation to things like this and yes it leads nicely into the next article I guess when we think of it that way. So I'm enjoying listening actually because it's a nice, and that's one of the good things about it being in, on the telephone instead of video conferencing, you can sort of sit and soak it in a bit. Yes, so yes it's a, and I can't help but think when, in relation to this article the application for, a bit like … my students rather than myself, because it's brining up all those sorts of things that they come to that particular subject with, the particular approaches and ideas and depending where they are in their course, behaviour isn’t bad, constructive isn’t good and not having the practical experience to know a classroom and know your students enough to know what's appropriate and not, or not and which sort of approach to draw on. I mean some sort of seem obvious and traditional but others, you might mix and match your approaches a little bit, a little bit outside the box some student. So and that's going to come with experience, so that in itself is interesting about how someone might adjust their theoretical perspective over time once they’ve got a handle on the teaching skill and some experience.

Q: Janet and Jenny you haven’t had a chance to say anything for a while.


F: They were enjoying listening too.

F: Yes, but no haven’t been thinking … there's lot's and lot's of ideas going round in their head and so I think the main thing with the theory is you can use it, a theory as a planning tool, you can use it as an analysis tool, so I'm … is not a problem. And I think that also, certainly in our position people might come to us academics who, you know science or whatever that haven’t got a … right, you know “You guys have got the jargon, tell me what I need to, tell me what I've done, you know this thing worked, why did it work, is there a name for it?” And so on and that's also okay, I mean it's useful to have a theory in mind that you can actually test but sometimes, that could teach you in the


instinct, happens and then you can actually, can find a name for it, that worked or if there isn’t a name for it you’ve got something new then I guess.

F: And so, I might ask a question that, you know if you, we've got them in boxes so to speak and … historical movement from one through to the latest. And I'm wondering you know is that because each one is a little impoverished and doesn’t have enough in it, so we need to go on to the next one which has been really … out some way?

M: Yes well I guess-

M: In the stuff I've been reading lately Jenny, that's the way, the progression if you want to call it progress, or the movement from behaviourism to cognitivism is definitely described. Educational psychologists in what I've read are indicating that there were limitations or deficiencies in the behaviourist principles, so they developed these cognitivist principles. And then other educational psychologists came along and said well there's sort of limitations within that and some other perspectives, so then you know ideas like constructivism come up.

F: So, and so where will the, and where will the link, it seems like, and this is my … reading by the way, seems like … is starting to allure to the fact that even connectivism has its limitations.

Q: Yes well look it's probably nearly time for us to start talking about connectivism. I just wanted to make one more point about just the stuff that, the way Chris Deeds gone about it. and it's just, I guess it, I've sort of half made this point before, there's this idea of associating particular technologies with particular learning theories, and I've been, certainly done it myself in early writing that I've done, and it's a nice way of being able to sort of classify technologies. I'm sort of worried about it a bit because more and more the technologies that we use in our teaching can be used in a really, in a range of different ways. And it's really the learning design that we use with that technology that is consistent or inconsistent with particular learning theories rather than the technology. And so there's a real danger in, say this technology, this learning theory rather than thinking of technologies that can afford a range of different learning tasks within different learning designs. And learning designs often include technological and non-technological elements as well which then change their nature. So I guess I'm, it made me question the way I've gone about talking about technology and learning a bit myself.

M: Yes I-

F: Good point, I think to, my students there's element of doing that in the subject I teach – introduction to educational technology. Where they do that, well because they’ve started looking at a range of learning theories and one of their module tasks is to align some ITC approaches with the learning theory, and the weaker students can do that fairly easily by copying it … the textbooks-

(Laughing)


F: … you know, not … (Unable to understand) which means I probably need to review the task, but the stronger students really struggle with that because that's what they see, they pick that up and they pick up that, “Well you can use this all for this or this or this, it depends what I do with it” and that sort of stuff. So I probably need to reorganise that task to highlight that or put a little bit more reflection in there or something. But that's actually a really good point and more and more as tools and approaches and where two things merge and can contain all sorts of things, it's certainly something to think about.

F: Yes for me it's a question of designing that holistic learning environment which in itself is what's the learning experience, learning designs is a part of that, is that whole thing. And so in the theories of some are just sort of one of the many tools as you sort of click and drag the bits that make up that environment I guess and that learning experience.

Q: Okay do you want to jump into connectivism now?

M: I think we … (Unable to understand)-

Q: Oh sorry.


M: One little final thing, a very small thing that stuck with me from E… last year in the closing keynote from Martin Oliver. He, one thing he described, you know game space learning is quite a, well a relatively new sort of thing that people are talking about. He made a point that in a lot of cases game space learning is very much aligned with the sort of behaviourist approaches, and that sort of stunned people into a lot of thought. So yes that was just something that I-

F: Yes that's interesting, I find that fascinating.

M: Something else that I thought of, but you know things mentioned in the Deed article like computer added instruction etc, aligning them with behaviourism etc fits, but when you come to something that could be described as an LMS, can be used in a whole heap of different ways and LMS’s aint just LMS’s, so yes that's-

Q: Yes which is just about adding evidence to that point about not, the validity of doing that, yes.

M: Yes it's not always about what you’ve got it's about how you use it.

(All laughing)

F: … (Unable to understand)-

(All laughing)

Q: I think we’ve, I'm just being aware of the time, I think we’d better give George Stevens a bit of Guernsey. Jackie how would you like to go first on George Stevens?

F: … he made me cross.


(All laughing) (Talking over each other)

F: … up, … on the training yesterday and … (Unable to understand) I'm sure he wondered what was wrong because I was umming and umming and …-

(All laughing)

F: And I started marking it because there was typo’s in it and for heavens sake, and I'm thinking refer…, where the hell did that come from?

(All laughing)

F: So I might not be a good person to start but I guess generally speaking there the sorts of things that annoy me the, that, there was sort of … (Unable to understand) and then I thought well maybe that's just a, it's highlighting a gap in my knowledge and I'm having to cross because … pointing out that I don’t know something. For me it's, I feel like I've read it more superficially than I needed to and it has in fact actually highlighted a gap in my knowledge about some of this sort of network theory and the stuff that seems to be …. Because from where I come from, from where I am at the moment a lot of it seems about the way we use knowledge and information rather than it being a learning theory as such … (Background Noise). I couldn’t get around how … that theory of learning is my dilemma, if someone could fill me in on that that would be wonderful.

Q: Who’d like to go next who could maybe some something positive about the article?

(All laughing)

F: I don’t mind, I'm very sad that Jackie went first because I really loved it when I first read it. and, but Jackie’s brought some of the realities and some that make me go back and think, okay then how can, you know how come I like that, is there something missing? I think Jackie’s right in that, yes it is very nicely, because at the surface if you really question that and I think I'm ready to question that because it works very well for research and something that I'm doing at the moment. And I think that the, yes as a learning theory, question mark, I need to go back and think about that, but and as a way we view knowledge and learning and how we, how that's all sort of I guess created as … (Background Noise) and I think it has a lot of potential. But the idea of the, you know exploring the … network complexities and self organisation theories is, I guess where my own head is at at the moment. So that really struck home as in I think that it's extremely valuable but I really need to, I'm going to go back through and sort of analyse these principles to just get some idea and some, I think I can question some of them but I think there might be some others to add as well. but yes, so I've got to go back and think about it, but I think connectivism is a very important thing, and you know with our, with the potential move to something like Interact 2, the idea of connectivism could be a very strong link or not, in that … (Unable to understand). You know technology is … and … at this point but I guess the idea of it is about connectivism and about creating that sort of shared knowledge,


it's about sort of really need to get our heads around, is this a good thing or not? because … (Unable to understand) towards a … is perhaps you know … itself could be a good thing but also we need to really think about this aspect of how we create knowledge and shared knowledge and so on with the, some of the technology that we might have I suppose.

M: …-

F: I had one little thing, I found particularly with the sort of, the work I'm doing in my PhD, I found the idea of it is tremendously seductive. It's and particularly probably to a bunch of computer nerds like us, that there's … theory that marries what we do with technology, you know we want to experience technology and the like and there's a learning theory specifically for that in some way. But it kind of didn’t gel so it's a seductive idea I guess.

Q: Will, you're about to say something?

M: Yes I felt the, some … I mean I'm also trying to place it as what, how much different it was and there's a 2011 article on connectivism and thus connectivism is perceived as relevant by it's practitioners but is lacking in rigor by it's critics.

Q: Yes I like that comment to, yes.

F: What did he say?

M: That's in one of the other articles that I’ve sent a link to … Lincoln, yes.

F: Yes, I think I've … (Too faint)-

M: But I think it also brings into view something that wouldn’t be in view otherwise. So I'm interested in how we work through that kind of tension between its lack of rigor but that fact that it's bringing something into view that needs to be worked on. I mean maybe it's more of a, rather than a learning theory it's a knowledge management theory or an organisational development theory. I mean learning theory seems to focus, and the others focus more on the individual, or the individual, what's happening to the individual to …. But this is more looking at the kind of the network and how the knowledge is being generated through the network and how that influences the individual. But it seems to just be looking more as a group rather than the individuals. And then there's other perspectives that have also been doing that I think. There's social learning which is from the late 80’s and 90’s, and yes so I think it’d be interesting to make connections with other theories that this person hasn’t really gone about this article in a really scholarly way I think.

M: Yes I agree with that.

Q: Lauren did you-?

M: Well maybe this is my lack of knowledge, but I became quite sort of unsure and I suppose confused about, I was looking at the principles of connectivism and I was looking at in particular learning may reside in knowing human appliances. And I just found that, and maybe that's my


understanding of what learning and knowledge is, the difference between the two, but I just thought how can learning reside in, I see it as like knowledge might reside in non human appliances and in fact when I read on he does make a statement that knowledge that resides in a database needs to be connected with the right people in the right context in order for it to be classified as learning. So I just, yes I'm just a bit troubled by that statement, that learning may reside, I consider knowledge may reside in those appliances and once you make that connection with people that it becomes learning. But to say learning, I don’t know, that's one thing that stood out for me.

Q: Mmm yes I think you’ve really captured it there, and it's that statement to me is the content... statement, yes I think that's, yes.

F: I mean I was even discussing it with my partner and he just thought that's quite hilarious actually.

(All laughing)

F: That they reside in, that we talked about knowledge but not necessarily consider it as learning. But you know that's just my understanding of what learning is and the difference between learning and knowledge.

M: See it seems to me that it's, the definition of learning is taken more from a sort of like organisational learning sort of perspective. And I guess if you think of organisational learning, so which I guess is about the collective knowledge that's captured by the organisation, then it would be true to say that because knowledge can be captured in non human appliances, then the organisations collection of knowledge does that and so therefore organisational learning needs to take into account knowledge that's captured in those. But to then say this is a learning theory that can be compared with other learning theories that relate to the way human beings learn is, that's where it falls down for me.

F: But it is, I mean about the organisational … we think formal organisation but in a subject or a course which, where you’ve got a lot of people sort of learning together. I suppose, yes it is the process, not saying that, I agree that this is a learning theory but I think that applying organisational learning theory and so on could be a very valuable thing to look at in terms of courses and I guess interdisciplinary work and things like that. And that, you know creating that … the collaborative approach to, I don’t know if you're creating on it but gathering it together anyway in a meaningful way. Each person’s got their own … if you all put it together it can make some sense.

F: … (Unable to understand) discipline … fits into organisational theory much more than educational theory in that sense. It’s collecting information, I mean … validate it … I suppose it depends on how you define knowledge that … collection of information and people need to learn how to access and use and turn information into knowledge. The way I sort of see that but interesting idea and maybe just in the wrong setting.


Q: Can I just let Bathurst have a go because they haven’t sort of come into the discussion yet, and then I'll go back to Lincoln and then Penny after that.

M: I see you're all being very, very hard on George-

(All laughing)

M: I know, since I read this all three of my children have been locked in their rooms on Facebook, and I've told them not to come out until they're a lot smarter …-

(All laughing) M: That's exempting meals, they are allowed to come out, so I just-

(Talking over each other) (All laughing)

M: So I agree with what people have been saying, let, maybe I'll take it up in a couple of ways and give an example of this as, I mean there's a couple of really compelling ideas in the beginning … this … way. I think it's an interesting notion; I don’t now whether it's his but, because there's not much … as … said. But the idea of a way theory has been constructed in a very … way, you know around us as individuals and the concept of network or in, it's more about individual difference, you know like commissionable psychometrics as opposed to working together. But this really is sort of not really a theory okay, it's a series of … that are kind of pulled together as principles that, I mean as Jackie said sort of very kind of intuitively compelling that not really deeply considered. Particularly around what I was saying earlier on as a theory about not just the big ideas but the systems, methods and tools. I'll give you examples of that – the driver for this is a … networks theory and complexity itself organisation. But the word feedback is not mentioned once in this and the essence of self organising systems is not the … line, it's the nature of the way people or agents in those systems if they're other organisms or in organic systems actually are connected. And so when you look at biological systems that are explained by self organisation, they're about the way those agents in those systems give up something in order to achieve mutual accommodation and individual and personal benefit. They get connected together and what they do is they build a schemer for that interaction. The schemer is informed by feedback and the key piece of, or key element of self organising system is the way agents constantly generate feedback that evolves the system, evolves the sophistication of the schemer and progresses it. What you see here is the sort of thing we’ve seen so many times in ICT is the seductive allure as Jackie was talking about of the connection, of the intuitive. It's kind of very appealing for the notion that by connecting everybody together that somehow things get better, well not really and not really unless you more explore more deeply the principles that underpin the contentions that are here. So when the article finishes by saying, or in that conclusion it says, if I can find it, yes the pipe is more important than the content within the pipe-



M: That is absolutely … to theories of self organisation and complexity okay, right there. So what you have here is someone who really has got a, or as the … I should say, constitutes a very superficial understanding of complexity and self organisation and the … is that the next time you go to a conference somebody will be saying “Yes this new work I'm doing is all based on connectivism” right-


M: Means and that will be cool and it’ll all take on a life of its own-

M: They already are Alan, that's why we’ve got to debunk this stuff-

(All laughing) (Talking over each other)

M: I had a conference in 2008 with 1000 people.

M: So that's why, you know and it's not to beef this up but you’ve got to, I guess the people are sticking their necks out and saying “This is a theory”. I'll give you an example, I'm working at the moment on a project that is years in the making, involves designing software for use at schools based on self organisation. It is really, really heavy lifting and it requires very deep interrogation, how do … feedback tools, how do you construct and take up the problem that was described earlier about, well hang on can a cognitive tool embody learning and knowledge as well as knowledge the information? And how do you, and if how does that … with feedback, with the scheme … organising system so that teachers and learners build a sense of a genuine learning community, it's non trivial and it makes my head hurt and this makes my head hurt because this trivialises it if you know what I mean. But I've said too much-

Q: Well put … do you want to have a crack?

M: I don’t know if I can articulate it quite as well as Alan can but I find it, I find connectivism, as Jackie and Alan have said, at the moment the hype around it is just astronomical, it's … (Talking over each other) article before we got onto this one saying there is no silver bullet. And I feel like connectivism in this article, all the theory, the you know not the theory of connectivism is … to be that silver bullet and … is obviously when you start to critique it. I also like, when I think about connectivism, I've read a lot about it because it's the buzz word at the moment, it gets thrown around all the social networks ironically. And when you look at it I always sit back and go, wow how convenient that when all these social networks come up we now have a theory that backs up this, social networks in learning … that operational space online. And it, and then it … (Unable to understand) in technology that drives the change again which everyone … it's not the way we should be thinking about things. and it feels like again we’re putting the cart before the horse, all … social networking sites and operational spaces online as appears, and now all of a sudden we have this … theory that also backs up the legitimate, and make it legitimate which I thinks, you know hasty and I think it's wrong and eventually it will become unstuck. And it's just that it, it just tends to be horses for courses at the moment. And again putting on another … it just, it sort of defeats me when we see this sort of thing and the amount of


money that's generated through these social networks and then low and behold we now have hysteria that everyone’s buying into, that will allow more sort of integration of the market back into our schooling again, and I feel a bit deflated by it.

Q: Look I'd like, I know Lincoln’s been busting to have a go and Lincoln was actually the person who suggested the topic, so I'm expecting a really articulate defence of the theory-

(All laughing)

M: Well, sorry to disappoint but, no Alan obviously knows far more about the theory behind, the apparent theory here and I think-

M: We’re all equals here you can attack Alan-

(All laughing)

M: I think that one of the really key points that's come out of the discussion or being highlighted in part of our discussion today, is that connectivism isn’t really a theory, a learning theory. Now what Semen’s has in the start of the second paragraph of his conclusion, is connectivism presents a model of learning. So there's a difference between a learning theory and I think a model of learning, so I think that's one significant point. Unfortunately I think you can kind of jump to the idea that maybe it's being presented that way because, perhaps not in this article but, well maybe at the top, the little forward says it shouldn’t be confused with constructivism. So it's sort of putting the two together there and it ends with ism, so-

M: And it, also the title of the article, a learning theory-


M: Yes well that, he’s brought himself unstuck there and this is the first one, but really I think a model of learning could be even an overstatement. But it's probably closer than learning theory. So for me what was useful about it is that it serves to highlight what's happening with knowledge in today’s society, it talks about doubling every 18 months and that's particularly relevant for our degrees, particularly for DE students, we’re particularly more volatile knowledge areas when someone’s taking 6 to 8 years to complete a degree. Stuff they’ve learnt 1st-2nd-3rd-4th year could be irrelevant or incorrect by the time people have finished. And my own view is that people should be learning skills such as knowing how to find information, how to assess whether it's valid, how to analyse, how to present principles, models, all that sort of stuff that they can then apply in the workplace. And networks are a important venue and line for learning and knowledge connection, transmission, impartation, transmission, all that sort of stuff.

M: They have a role.

M: They have a role and I had a big question mark next to learning may reside in … (Unable to understand) as well Lauren. And I thought, where is it, there was another statement that I thought … and Pr… and so I sort of see this as a-



M: Interesting thought paper. It was talking about brains be rewired by technology or-

F: Oh yes I saw that, that made me cross too.

M: No reference, of course we all know that to be true apparently, we don’t even need a reference.

F: Technologies often rewiring our brains.

M: Yes, so I think there's some use in it. I've got a diagram if people are interested, I've already circulated it to Jackie on a previous occasion, that's shows what a connectivist sort of subject might look like in terms of, yes connections basically and that maybe of interest to folk. So I think there's some use in it in an article like that to help us think through knowledge, learning and teaching approaches.

Q: Jenny I'm aware you haven’t had a chance to give us your view yet.

F: Well Janet and I have had, exchanged a couple of sentences. I think, I'm with you that it's not exactly a theory, it's really more of a process and we do think about wanting our students to, you know encourage them to find new ways of finding information that, useful. We arrange our learning experiences for them in order to do that, but I wouldn’t call it a learning theory, it's a different way of approaching how we know some students learn. So, it's a very interesting thought provoking article and I'm going to read it much more carefully. And some of the sort of jargon terms that are kind of leaping out at me and I know I had to kind of sit quietly and read it rather than just kind of … keeps being pulled to these … they're trying to engage me in reading it quite superficially because of these terms … when I see technology is altering, rewiring our brains, I think oh yes I've got to read that bit. And then I'm skimming over another thing to … but I think it does need that I sit and read it through carefully and not kind of be seduced by some of the terms you'd use in ….

Q: Penny, oh sorry Penny you-

F: That's fine, I'm finished.

Q: Penny I haven’t thrown to you either and I know you’ve got lots of highlights and notes there.

F: I've got a couple of things. I like when you said learning model, because I actually had picked up on his very last sentence, you know connectivism provides insight into learning skills and tasks, and I thought yes that's where I was gelling with it. I see the opportunity that students are using multimedia, social networking communication in such a big way in their lives and I think if that gelled when I read learning skills and tasks rather than learning theory. The other thing that jumped out at me was the idea that learning know how and know what is being su… with nowhere, so sourcing information rather than the idea that connectivism is about sourcing it rather than internalising it perhaps, jumped out at me. Then I, that challenged me and I thought


what's my role now as the teacher if this is the way that they're going to learn, is it just through social networking type arrangements, you know they don’t need me anymore. Then I though well where would I end up, something that, fuzzy goals came out in another reading and I went oh yes fuzzy goals, like hello I'm really thinking that's where it could end up. Because I, we do teach, has said of articles that, making the goals explicit and behaviourist approach it may well be but we’re telling everyone this is what we want you do know about and know to do. Is that such a bad thing? So that's says a multitude of ideas jumping out I'm sorry. But I'll finish with a story; I've got some students at the moment who are trying to get their head around smart notebook. And they're angst-ing about it because they're very new into the learning stage of this software and he came and saw me and they said “You know you're causing all sorts of headaches and why do we have to get our head into this technology? You should read what they're saying about you on Facebook”.

(All laughing)

F: So is it that there’s social networking and there's learning?

(All laughing)

F: You know now the … shall meet.

Q: So did you get onto Facebook?

(All laughing)

M: Barney can I inject something; I know I've probably had my turn so I don’t want to-?

Q: No you're right; I think everyone's had a turn so it's open slather for a bit now.

M: Oh I'll be quick. I just wanted to get some sort of a little … and see how people react to this. Rather, one of the things in here, and actually I am really interested in is that learning may reside in non human appliances. And you know obviously … you’ve got to define those terms to get comfortable, but one of the things we’re working on a project on at the moment is we know that teachers have real difficulty, and I think it's because of just the immense cognitive load of running a classrooms one explanation for a, of taking things that we know from good research about teaching practices and things and using them routinely in practice. And one of the things that we’re trying to explore is if you build the capacities and transactions around that professional knowledge into software that teachers can then use really practically in classrooms. On … you can just say, well that's just a relational database; it's just got fields and tables with stuff in it. But on the other hand if the relationship between those fields and tables constitutes professional learning, so if they … research based knowledge about cooperative learning or how to question effectively. If those things are sort of mapped into the design of the software and the teachers use that and build their learning experiences in that software, how do you in fact create a set of circumstances where learning does reside in a non human appliance?


Q: Yes look I reckon you're onto something there. It seems to me that you can think of, you know traditional decisions support systems which are, you know where you sort of encapsulate through a sort of an expert system database a whole lot of stuff that's known about a particular domain. So that when you're making decisions you can draw on that sort of system. And they're sort of close systems, they're not connected, they're used by an individual and you think of the network as a sort of a social constructivist scaffold if you like, it's a scaffold for social constructivist learning and social constructivist sort of decision making. So it's like a decision support system that's not a close system but involves technology as well as people, and so that as you're making decisions and also learning, you're doing that in a constant sort of connection with other people and constantly scaffolded by their systems that contain knowledge. So I think there's something in that, it's not a learning theory but it's certainly something we need to think about as an affordance of technology for learning.

M: Because that could be, what you … could be a … now it's represented in a tool but it's an extension of the … the cognitive s… or the … (Unable to understand) that you have for the transactions that are in that system right? And if you need to draw on that and that in someway mirrors the way you’ve got that information constructed in your own memory, then it in a sense can be construed as being learning.

F: … (Unable to understand) realise … do you think, and I mean I bet there are a few things about that and I've not quite got my head around it and … information’s … people here, I don’t know if there are, think, who know more about that. is it the idea that the internet, … put it, but the software that they're using is, actually it's doing some of that … based on your input and the like, a bit more sophisticated than just the database.

M: Jackie, it oh, do you-?

M: Okay.

M: Is that … yes I know everyone says we’re 2.0 that … to web 3.0 is either sort of bridge, the next bridge and as a one off, you know learning might not be a non human application but it does actually have direct links to that, whereby the … web understands not only what information you give it but it takes information about you as well and then it provides an environment from which you then best learn. So it then takes an organisational space around that and that's, it's not, I haven’t seen it in full affect but that's their theory in it.

F: Yes I just wondered if that's what he’s sort of on about here or whether there's one sort of, whether they overlap in some way, because that's the only way I can see he could make a statement like that, that learning resides in … and I guess that's why I've never quite got my head around the Symantec web, how it envisioned I suppose, because I have not seen it either, and I guess that's what they're working on. But I thought that might be the, kind of the direction that it's going.

M: I think just with the web 3 is such a new concept and it's still sort of building it because there's only like a few people that understand well this is what we think it’ll do. And there are websites out there that are starting to head in that direction, like you know …?


F: Oh yes.

M: Yes that's the sort of building blocks where by it's the learning systems embedded in that website, and you take, you add in information that it then starts collecting that information … and what you’ve done previously and collects an individualised piece of information for you.

Q: Yes it sounds to me as though George’s more interested in the sort of dynamic nature of information provided by people rather than in having information sort of encoded in systems and sort of dynamically generated depending on the sort of supposed needs of the learner. Which that sort of whole AI sort of stuff is, was really exciting but it seems people have been working on for years and years and got virtually nowhere with it except beyond really simple types of learning.

F: I think I'm trying to figure out a way where it, like a validity I guess or …. I mean the, in sort of thinking out aloud in a way, the sort of ideas and … in there rather than having … done.

M: Jackie if you wanted to build a real theory you could just read this and say that it's some interesting intuitions and a little bit of-


M: … build one.

Q: Well it seems to me that what's needed here isn’t a new theory but what's needed is a really good hard think about the affordances of massive networks like this for learning, drawing on our current knowledge of the way people learn. So really having a, you know using learning theories that have a bit of traction with psychologists who really have studied learning rather than just plucked out of the air. And I reckon there is something in it, in just thinking about new ways of thinking about the way that we teach and the way students learn that draws on the affordances of this, these types of systems I reckon.

F: But the value that I see in it that I'd like to explore was I guess, I'm going back I guess to the organisations … who decided that it probably, you know a key thing there. And I suppose a question to Alan I suppose is that is there anything at all that you would see from your systems background and some in that first … where he talks about connectivism as the integration of principles explored by chaos, network and complexity and staff organisation theory? Now I mean over that he didn’t actually do that, in this particular article he didn’t sort of hear much more about that, but do you think there's value in exploring that further, I guess within organisational learning and yes I guess further-


M: I mean there's a lot of work that's been done in that space. I mean it's interesting, network theory and … organisations sort of share an incredible amount of cross over because the essence of … organisation is agency and feedback and … involvement as I said. Network analysis looks at the connections amongst nodes or across nodes or agents in a network. So it's, I think there is, there's immense amount of opportunity in here


but one of the things that you’ve got to be a bit careful with is that chaos, complexity and self organisation have become kind of theory … at that s… kind of badge level where it's so seductive, that is the word I think Jackie used earlier on, it's very compelling, you know the … the … (Unable to understand) you know … falling off the edge or seeking a new equilibrium or whatever. It's all kind of been … up in education without really a lot of deep exploration, so in answering your question I think, yes there is great opportunity but it's going to be people who build out the models who really go beyond the idea that this is a, something that academics talk about and stuff that can help people by drilling down to the detail level, practical. I mean it's ironical that it's a deeper theoretical understanding that will yield the practical applications of the work and help people.

Q: Now I'd like to just draw us to a close a bit because I've got a couple of house keeping things to do in the last 5 minutes if that's okay. I think this has been a really good topic, I'm sure there's people who have got things they’ve been busting to say but haven’t had a chance to say. We will, the, all of these are recorded and placed on the blog and Lauren’s doing a bit of work on the blog at the moment, but I'm going to try and shortly start trying to open up that blog and encourage it as a discussion space. So it's a place we can go and revisit some of the things we said, and add additional comments, unsay things that we thought we’d say wrongly, and you know, but also open it up to a wider audience beyond the group as well, so see if it can become a hub for conversations around that. The next meeting, Janet has volunteered to do a research presentation and I've taken her up on that offer, so it’ll be on 16th of September, I'll send out a meeting request for that after this meeting. I tend to confuse people if I send out 2 different meeting requests before, you know what I mean, people go “What was that, I thought it was this Friday, oh he must have cancelled it or something” so I'll send out another one for that. I'd still like to hear from others who have research presentations they'd be keen to give to the group, so let me know about that. We, and alternatively further ideas for literature discussions and any you’ve got off the top of your head that you'd like to just share now, Janet’s as well. and also ideas for a face to face symposium which I'm sort of thinking might be timed for the middle of December because it's a period after people, sort of … (Background Noise) to go away to their conferences, they’ve finished their teaching, they're making a grant but they're not so burnt out that they're, you know on holidays yet. But what does that, is that feasible, a face to face-?

F: We've got graduation the middle of December, I'm not sure, you know it's obviously around about the 13th for us so-


F: I think it's about the 15th-16th-17th isn’t it?

F: Yes.

Q: Yes so we have to avoid that. does that sound feasible, because I'm just worried that if we try to have it before then, sort of, if it comes too early it can conflicts with teaching, there's … and so on as well, so that's why I'm thinking December.


F: You wouldn’t make it as part of the … perhaps, people are travelling anyway?

Q: Yes it's worth a thought, but it might just be with the fighting against other sessions and things if it's not …-

F: So I'm thinking maybe you could go a day before or a day after, people are travelling anyway rather than at the same time.

Q: I'll have a think about that.

F: … here isn’t it?

F: Yes.

Q: No coincidence that-

(All laughing)

F: But even so, by … into Bathurst I think I'd rather come for an extra day than to make an extra trip another time-

Q: Yes that's true, so let’s explore that. Okay well we’re probably just about out of time and I like a smooth finish so unless anyone’s got any last burning things to say-

F: It was very interesting.

Q: Thank you all and we’ll talk again next month hopefully.

F: Thanks Barney.


M: Bye.

(Recording stopped)


interview - wordpress.com€¦ · web viewq: i was thinking, i was trying to think which article...

Documents