In this recent paper in Action Research Expeditions, Margaret Farren reports on her PhD thesis, which examines the growth of her educational knowledge and development of her practice over six years of self-study.

As an E-Learning development officer, working with mid-career Engineering Masters students who are completely new to online collaboration, I particularly enjoyed wading through the discussion threads provided as part of Enquiry 2. I must admit I was envious of Dr Farren, with her very articulate and online discussion-savvy students. I loved reading Trudy Corrigan’s response to Darragh Power’s question about how he should address the failure of his organisation to recognise the value of collaboration. Basically, she advised him to just do it anyway and lead by example – sound advice that illustrates the power of collaborative learning and knowledge construction.The techniques Dr Farren has employed in her moderation of the discussion forum are sound – summarising and weaving are used well, and the discussion remains positive and encouraging at all times. I would have loved to read more about how Dr Farren got to this point with her students – whether they were already experienced at online discussion, and if not, what it took to get there.
Moira Laidlaw, another commentator, wrote that she felt greater emphasis, or different placing, could have been given to the multimedia elements of the article. I personally feel that these elements of the article were well-placed. I found the video clip useful only in that it gave me an image of the learning community that had been formed among the group – I prefer the clarity of a discussion forum if I need to gain an idea of what people are actually saying to each other.

I picked up many interesting points from Dr Farren’s introduction which I intend to look into more closely in my own study. Firstly, I was very interested to read the Skilbeck quote – “many institutions have failed to make teaching excellence an important factor in career advancement and recognition” (Skilbeck, 2001, p.87). – If only because this issue finally seems to be coming to the fore at Bath, which is employing a new framework for recognition and reward of academic staff that focuses particularly on teaching.

I was also interested in the adult education issue that Dr Farren raised – about adult education being regarded as belonging to a separate sphere from higher education proper. I wasn’t quite clear on exactly what was meant by ‘adult education’ in this context – mature professionals studying masters programmes or sub-degree level community education?

The Barnett reference also got me thinking – “Barnett asserts that the main pedagogical task of a university is not to transmit knowledge but to develop in human beings the attributes appropriate to conditions of supercomplexity (2000, p. 164).”. …and it will probably keep me thinking well into the small hours I’ll cogitate on that one for a bit longer and post some conclusions on my blog at a later date.

Finally, I agree with Dr Farren that strategic use of ICT for the diverse range of students in higher education will require explicit policy developments – but I’m confident that these will trickle through! Bath appears to be following a fairly organic approach – the usual state of affairs is that a critical mass of individuals get excited enough about technology-enhanced learning to get funding for a project, and they create something – learning about it in the process – and tell everyone who’s interested. This gives rise to more projects, more funding, more learning…and so on.

I must admit I’m still grappling with the phrases ‘web of betweenness’ and ‘pedagogy of the unique’. I think I prefer to stay within a comfort zone where everyone writes exactly what they mean in language that is unambiguous and doesn’t include mysterious-sounding phrases in inverted commas. But it’s all very interesting…

The article talks about the ethical dilemmas and difficulties that are particular to educational action research. Many of the issues raised are only relevant to teacher-researchers who work with minors – not relevant to my own practice although still interesting. I was particularly surprised to read that the penalising of non-participating pupils or students was a significant issue, and thought that this was quite an appalling state of affairs. To be honest, I was also surprised that anyone would not agree to participate in something that would eventually benefit them (maybe this just highlights how naive I am in these matters…!). I was particularly amused to read the reference to the work of Zeni (2001), which reported a concern among parents that their offspring would be ‘recognised’ by others. Surely this would only be possible if their child’s characteristics were well-known already, and therefore the ‘recognition’ would not cause an further detriment to their, or their child’s, reputation? This pre-occupation with one’s own (minor?) interests upsets me. I suppose my ideal world is one of altruism and openness!

In general, I’m not sure I agree with Mervis and Seashore’s (1982) suggestion that the roles of practitioner and researcher are in conflict. I see action research as a deep and continuous evaluation of one’s practice that has the potential to be of great benefit to one’s students.

So, it’s off to the session now and I may report back with my eyes opened and my mind changed… watch this space.