8002 RESEARCH QUESTION

Facilitator’s Guide and

Resource Set

Jay Hays

Facilitator’s Guide to 8002 Research Question

INTRODUCTION—COURSE OVERVIEW AND ORIENTATION TO THIS USER’S GUIDE

Vision, Purpose, and Context

What follows is a vision for the course that represents the author’s interpretation of colleagues’

and students’ expressed needs and expectations for the course, and opportunities for its best

realisation, all within the philosophy and principles of the Applied Practice model. The vision—

or perhaps the values underpinning its design—might be framed simply as community,

collaboration, contribution, and communication, “the Big Cs” or C4, perhaps enriched with a little

creativity and courage.

This course, as with its two preceding courses (8000 and 8001), emphasises a deeply

collaborative, stakeholder engagement approach that embodies the principles of kaupapa Maori,

which involve community, dialogue, consultation, and involvement. Study Groups, for example,

discussed below, provide a key mechanism for collaboration, communication, and building

community—sites for dialogue and engagement, enabling creativity, imbuing courage, and

refining the art and craft of consultation.

The course is about giving focus, direction, and strategy for serving the community and making

the world a better place; or, at the student’s level, to making an improvement in his or her place

of work or practice area. This is the aspect of contribution, one of our Big Cs. Focus, direction,

and strategy for contribution come about through the various learning activities comprising the

course and the assessment components they lead to. Contribution probably means solving a

problem, capitalising upon an opportunity, or progressing an on-going initiative that has meaning

and relevance to a student’s stakeholders. Early course activities help students better understand

who their stakeholders are and how best to engage them. Also early on, students come to better

understand their area of professional practice and their practice context, enabling the

identification of projects likely to make a difference and how they might be best designed to

succeed.

The Course (Semester) at a Glance

The block diagram below shows the course across a projected 15-week schedule, with the major

focuses along the way. These focus areas, or phases of the course, are aligned with the

assessments and associated activities. A more-detailed version of this diagram is included in the

section Weekly Schedule of Topics and Activities further on.

Figure 1. Block diagram—weekly schedule with phases of the course.

Note that collaboration is ongoing, with focuses linked to phases of the semester and assessment

components, but is, itself, assessed toward the end of the course. See next item. See, also,

further below, more detail on assessments.

Week

1

Week

14

Week

2

Week

3

Week

4

Week

5

Week

6

Week

7

Week

8

Week

9

Week

10

Week

11

Week

12

Week

13

Week

15

Orienting

Reflection

Context

Analysis

Methods Analysis

and Comparison

Written Project

Proposal

Final

Reflection

Collaboration

10% 15% 15% 15% 15%

15%

Project

Presentation15%

Collaboration

Collaboration is a key dimension of 8002. Main reasons for this emphasis are to (1) exemplify

and promote desired behaviours and dispositions related to community engagement and

consultation, (2) deepen learning and improve student performance through active, cooperative

learning, and (3) create a healthy, vibrant, cordial and collegial environment in which everyone

feels a valued part, useful for student retention and success, but also to provide a model for

interaction, learning, and productivity that can be replicated in students’ workplaces and

communities. This is part of the larger change agenda—how Unitec can contribute to community

well-being.

Collaboration in the course—primarily, though not exclusively, through the aegis of Study

Groups—is ongoing (explained below). This contributes to the continuous and iterative revision

and improvement of students’ assessment pieces as they go along. That is, they will share their

work with classmates, receive feedback, and revise. Moreover, each piece of assessment (save

final reflection) builds on the prior and, ultimately, comprises their project proposal. Thus, by the

time they submit and present their proposal, it will have been critiqued and strengthened through

this collaboration, likely as a result to be more compelling.

More difficult to explain and describe is the collaborative relationship between teacher

(facilitator) and student. Whilst role or perceptions of authority or expert might be difficult to

dispel, the relationship needs to be one of parity and collaboration between professionals. It must

not be a superior-subordinate type of relationship as that would be antithetical or contrary to the

type of relationships students are being asked to create and sustain with their own stakeholders

and clients—one of collegiality, shared effort, and mutual contribution and benefit: a “with”

scenario rather than a “for”, “to”, or “about” one.

Thoughts on Reflection

This is not directly a course on reflection. It is a course designed to support learners to develop a

project proposal that leads to a successfully implemented project in the professional practitioner’s

workplace or community setting that makes a positive difference and has meaningful impact. In

so doing, it is a course to develop learners in their professional practice. Reflection, in

conjunction with other activities, is one of the primary ways this course promotes development as

professional practitioner. Reflection and reflective practice are seen as a process skill and

disposition that complement the more technical and methodological skills and techniques built

through the course. Linked to course outcomes, effective reflective practice will increase the

likelihood that course graduates will engage and interact better with their stakeholders, being

more capable in collaboration, consultation, and dialogue with them; thus increasing the efficacy

of their projects.

Many courses use reflection to enhance learning and / or to promote transformational learning.

This, itself, in not new. Many courses, though, whilst ostensibly relying on reflection to deepen

and extend learning and perhaps even assessing it, fail to actually provide frameworks for and

training in reflective practice. This course has two distinct assessment items intending to

exercise, develop, and assess reflection; and students are instructed and coached in how to

perform well on these assessments (and to extend or transfer the learning to other tasks).

Companion activities across the course rely on and build reflective skills and dispositions, with

prime examples being collaboration and the use of Critical Reflective Dialogues.

Could students and facilitators approach the basic material, objectives, and assessments of the

course with little to no attention to reflection? Certainly. And much would be learned about

methods, procedures, and analysis. Technical proficiency might likely be attained. But much of

the richness, subtlety, complexity, depth, understanding, insight, and awareness made possible

through reflective practice would be missed.

The Bottom Line

The “bottom line” for the course is that students will develop and present a defensible project

plan to classmates and / or course facilitators and other stakeholders. Stakeholders, here, implies

external organisational or community parties (individuals or groups (or their representatives)

whose approval to proceed or fund the project is needed or who might be engaged in or impacted

by the project. This is to add realism and authenticity to the project. The proposal and its

presentation are understood to be the project “pitch”.

This delivery concept makes the proposal less academic and more practical, very much in

keeping with the notion of Applied Practice. A disadvantage of this concept is that the proposal

(or some version thereof) will have to go through the Project Proposal Approval Committee and

likely through the Unitec Research Ethics Committee, as well, demanding it have academic

rigour and careful ethical research design, which can sometimes be dismissed in non-academic

projects.

The Assessments

There are two major assessment pieces for this course (as originally proposed and approved):

Portfolio and Project Proposal, carrying 40% and 60% course weight respectively. Portfolio was,

somewhat oddly, described as a comparison of data-gathering methods. This aspect is retained as

the item called “Methods Analysis Comparison” (MAC), but in keeping with the intent of

“portfolio”, the first assessment been extended to include more process and reflection elements.

For practical purposes and to provide a simpler logic, continuity, and formative nature to the

course assessments, and better integrate them, the two assessments are broken-down as follows:

Assessment and Weight Component Percentage

Assessment 1: Portfolio – 40% Collaboration A1b

Initial Reflection A1a

Compare and Contrast Suitable Data-Gathering Methods A1c

10%

10%

20% 40%

Assessment 2: Project Proposal – 60% Context Analysis A2a

Formal Written Proposal A2b

Presentation to Stakeholders A2c

Final Reflection A2d

20%

15%

15%

10% 60%

100%

Table 1. High-level overview of assessment components and weights.

These assessment items are thoroughly detailed and rubrics provided for them in the section

below titled Detailed Assessment Descriptions and Marking Rubrics.

WEEKLY SCHEDULE OF TOPICS AND ACTIVITIES

Economy

Environment

Social-

Cultural

Technology

Structure-

Organisation

Politics

Sustainability

KM

/ T

NK

Week

1

Week

14

Week

2

Week

3

Week

4

Week

5

Week

6

Week

7

Week

8

Week

9

Week

10

Week

11

Week

12

Week

13

Week

15

Orienting

Re

fle

ctio

n

Conte

xt

An

aly

sis

Meth

ods A

naly

sis

and

Co

mpa

rison

Written P

roje

ct

Pro

po

sal

Fin

al

Re

fle

ctio

n

Co

llab

ora

tion

10%

15%

15%

15%

15%

15%

No

tes

The

box

es b

enea

th “c

olla

bora

tion”

pro

vide

brie

f, hi

gh-le

vel s

umm

arie

s of

wha

t stu

dent

s w

ill b

e do

ing

acro

ss th

e se

mes

ter.

Col

labo

ratio

n is

dep

icte

d as

con

tinuo

us a

s st

uden

ts a

re e

xpec

ted

to w

ork

toge

ther

and

sup

port

one

ano

ther

acr

oss

the

sem

este

r.

The

red

col

umns

in e

ach

asse

ssm

ent c

ompo

nent

indi

cate

sub

mis

sion

of t

he r

espe

ctiv

e ite

m in

the

corr

espo

ndin

g w

eek,

with

ass

ocia

ted

in-

and

out-

of-c

lass

act

iviti

es s

pann

ing

the

resp

ectiv

e pe

riods

.

The

box

es b

ehin

d th

e 5

asse

ssm

ent i

tem

s ar

raye

d ac

ross

Row

2 in

dica

te th

e fo

cus

of c

olla

bora

tion

at r

espe

ctiv

e po

ints

.

Fin

al R

efle

ctio

n sp

ans

expe

rienc

e fr

om in

itial

ref

lect

ion

thro

ugh

all p

arts

of t

he c

ours

e, e

spec

ially

col

labo

ratio

n, a

nd in

clud

ing

final

ref

lect

ion.

Gui

danc

e an

d m

arki

ng r

ubric

s ar

e pr

ovid

ed s

epar

atel

y fo

r ea

ch a

sses

smen

t com

pone

nt.

F

amili

aris

e yo

urse

lf w

ith

cour

se (

obje

ctiv

es, a

ctiv

ities

, as

sess

men

ts,

Moo

dle

orga

nisa

tion)

.

C

ritic

ally

ref

lect

on

dyna

mic

ex

perie

nce

and

prog

ress

so

far

in p

rogr

amm

e; u

se O

R

tem

plat

e to

focu

s yo

ur

refle

ctio

ns.

F

orm

stu

dy g

roup

; en

gage

in

mea

ning

ful d

ialo

gue

with

in

stru

ctor

s an

d pe

ers.

R

evie

w a

nd p

rovi

de

feed

back

on

prog

ress

ive

itera

tions

of O

R.

C

ondu

ct a

nd s

ubm

it C

onte

xt

Ana

lysi

s, u

sing

the

CA

M a

nd

with

ref

eren

ce t

o te

mpl

ate

and

guid

ance

pro

vide

d.

E

xcha

nge

criti

cal,

subs

tant

ive

revi

ews

on C

A

with

stu

dy g

roup

mem

bers

; an

d m

odify

CA

acc

ordi

ngly

.

D

efin

e R

esea

rch

Que

stio

n /

adju

st R

Q in

acc

orda

nce

with

C

A.

R

evie

w a

nd p

rovi

de

feed

back

on

prog

ress

ive

itera

tions

of C

A.

V

isit

libra

ry a

nd /

or fa

mili

aris

e yo

urse

lf w

ith v

ario

us d

ata

base

s an

d ot

her

sour

ces

of d

ata

bear

ing

on y

our

RQ

and

pra

ctic

e ar

ea is

sue.

S

elec

t and

rev

iew

rel

evan

t so

urce

s th

at

info

rm y

our

RQ

/ ar

ea o

f int

eres

t and

, pa

rtic

ular

ly, r

esea

rch

met

hods

and

pro

ject

ap

proa

ches

like

you

rs a

nd th

at h

ave

prov

en u

sefu

l els

ewhe

re.

A

djus

t you

r C

A a

ccor

ding

ly.

E

stab

lish

clea

r ne

ed fo

r a

stud

y of

this

ty

pe (

ratio

nale

).

A

ttend

lect

ures

and

do

read

ings

on

rese

arch

met

hodo

logi

es.

W

rite

your

MA

C, s

hare

suc

cess

ive

itera

tions

with

SG

and

rev

ise

MA

C

acco

rdin

gly.

F

amili

aris

e yo

urse

lf w

ith th

e P

roje

ct P

ropo

sal t

empl

ate

and

deve

lopm

ent

guid

ance

.

D

evel

op y

our

PP

, inc

orpo

ratin

g yo

ur R

Q, C

A, a

nd M

AC

, with

pa

rtic

ular

em

phas

is to

rat

iona

le a

nd

rese

arch

met

hods

/ pr

ojec

t ap

proa

ch.

In

corp

orat

e fe

edba

ck y

ou h

ave

been

rec

eivi

ng a

ll al

ong

and

any

new

dat

a an

d in

sigh

ts a

risin

g th

roug

h yo

ur c

ontin

ued

stud

y an

d ex

perie

nce.

E

xcha

nge

revi

ews

and

feed

back

w

ith S

G m

embe

rs.

P

rese

nt P

P u

sing

sui

tabl

e m

edia

to

cla

ssm

ates

, ins

truc

tors

, an

d st

akeh

olde

r re

pres

enta

tives

.

G

athe

r up

all

note

s, jo

urna

l en

trie

s, a

nd a

sses

smen

ts

subm

itted

(al

ong

with

feed

back

) fo

r re

fere

nce;

spe

ak t

o pe

ers,

in

stru

ctor

s, a

nd o

ther

s w

ho m

ight

pr

ovid

e ob

serv

atio

ns o

n yo

ur

jour

ney

thro

ugh

the

cour

se;

and

writ

e-up

you

r cr

itica

l ref

lect

ions

co

verin

g th

e en

tire

cour

se u

sing

, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, th

e te

mpl

ate

and

guid

ance

pro

vide

d

A

t the

min

imum

, ref

lect

ions

sh

ould

doc

umen

t wha

t you

le

arne

d an

d ho

w y

ou le

arne

d it;

th

ough

ts a

bout

the

cour

se a

nd

your

pro

ject

, yo

ur b

alan

ced

criti

que

of y

our

perf

orm

ance

, an

d ne

xt s

teps

.

Pro

ject

Pre

se

nta

tion 15%

Key

I – Individual

SG – Study Group C – Whole Class

FTF – Face to Face Session OL – On Line Session / Activities

Wk Topics and Activities

1 FTF

Semester / Course at a glance and pertinent details—The Roadmap C

Major assessment pieces and how they fit together C

Focus on Assessment 1a—Orienting Reflection I, SG, C

Focus on Assessment 1b—Collaboration and the Collaboration Assessment Inventory I, SG, C

2 FTF

Progressing Assessment 1a—Orienting Reflection I, SG

Focus on Research Question I, SG

Introduction to Assessment 1c—Context Analysis C

Submit Assessment 1a—Orienting Reflection

3 OL

Check-in and Review C

Collaboration Activity—Review of Assessment 1a (Orienting Reflection) and feedback received SG

Focus on Assessment 2a—Context Analysis I, SG, C

4 FTF

Check-in and Review C

Collaboration Activity—Progress Review and Feedback on Assessment 2a (Context Analysis) SG

Focus on Assessment 1c (Compare and Contrast Suitable Data-Gathering Methods) C

Submit Assessment 2a—Context Analysis

5 OL

On-line check-in and review—synchronous / asynchronous? I, SG, C??

Progress Assessment 1c (Compare and Contrast Suitable Data-Gathering Methods)—Outlining, Researching, and Writing I

6 OL

On-line check-in and review—synchronous / asynchronous? I, SG, C??

Progress Assessment 1c (Compare and Contrast Suitable Data-Gathering Methods)

Collaboration Activity: Sharing and responding to evolving assignment I, SG,

7 FTF

Check-in and Review C

Focus on Assessment 1c (Compare and Contrast Suitable Data-Gathering Methods) I, SG, C

8 OL

On-line check-in and review—synchronous / asynchronous? I, SG, C??

Collaboration Activity: Review and Provide Feedback of Final Version of Assessment 1c

Introduction to Assessment 2b (Formal Written Proposal): Preliminary Guidance and Template

Submit Assessment 1c—Compare and Contrast Data-Gathering Methods

9 FTF

Check-in and Review C

Focus on Assessment 2b (Formal Written Proposal)—Outlining, Framing, and Writing I, SG, C

Collaboration Activity—Support and Review Proposal Outline Development SG

10 OL

On-line check-in and review—synchronous / asynchronous? I, SG, C??

Assessment 2b Writing and Formatting I

Collaboration Activity—Support and Review Written Project Proposal SG

11 OL

On-line check-in and review—synchronous / asynchronous? I, SG, C??

Assessment 2b Writing and Formatting I

Focus on Assessment 2c (Project Presentation), Guidelines and Tips C

Collaboration Activity—Support and Review Final Version of Written Project Proposal SG

Collaboration Activity—Support and Review Development of Project Proposal Presentation SG

Submit Assessment 2b—Formal Written Proposal

12 FTF

Presentations in class, on-line, and / or at stakeholder site I, SG, C

Group Activity—Presentation Critiques and Lessons Learnt C

Present Assessment 2c—Presentation to Stakeholders

13 FTF

Presentations in class, on-line, and / or at stakeholder site I, SG, C

Group Activity—Presentation Critiques and Lessons Learnt C

Submit Assessment 2c—Presentation to Stakeholders

14 OL

On-line check-in and review—synchronous / asynchronous? I, SG, C??

Collaboration Activity—Feedback and Discussions on Project Proposal Presentation SG

Focus on Assessment 2d (Final Reflection) C

Activity—Writing the Final Reflection I

Collaboration Activity—Review, Feedback, and Discussions on Final Reflection SG

Activity—Collaboration Assessment Inventory I, SG

15 OL / FTF

Activity—Writing the Final Reflection I

Last class! Students may wish to convene along with instructors and celebrate end of semester and jobs well done. Convening will be joint decision.

Submit Assessment 2d—Final Reflection

TOPIC DESCRIPTIONS AND ACTIVITY INSTRUCTIONS

1. Activity / template for Orienting Reflection (A1a)

This activity concerns both the student reflecting upon and writing-up material as the Orienting

Reflection (Assessment A1a) and interaction and collaboration with peers in a classroom setting

(this can be done on-line, if necessary). The interactive and collaborative aspect of the activity is

supported by a lesson on Critical Reflective Dialogue and PABBAVEM (see below). Depending

on the size of the class and the facilitator’s inclinations, the lesson and interactive-collaborative

part of the activity can comprise 90 – 180 minutes and span the first two weeks of class.

There is no template or required format for the Orienting Reflection. Students should be

encouraged to approach the task as they see fit. They may, however, benefit from addressing the

themes and questions suggested below (Suggested Format for Orienting Reflection).

The initial reflection assessment, Orienting Reflection, is designed to help students reflect back

upon the two courses they had (8000 and 8001) and prepare to get the most out of 8002, the

Research Question course, to orient them toward it. Revisiting the work they’ve done previously

in the programme should help them clarify their research question (RQ), if they have one, or at

least refresh their thoughts on themselves as professional practitioners in the context of their

practice area—the organisations or communities in which they work. The intent, here, is to

obtain a more encompassing (if still general) view of their area of practice—its challenges and

opportunities and the student’s relationship and responsibility towards the needs of their practice.

Discussing these practice-related issues with their classmates and iteratively formulating them in

writing help to clarify and crystallise the student’s thoughts, questions, concerns, and

conclusions. It may seem a bit much for students (and facilitator) so early on in the course to

introduce PABBAVEM (perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, biases, assumptions, values, expectations,

and motives), but undertaking to understand these interior and often unconscious drivers of

behaviour is of the utmost importance in becoming a more efficacious professional practitioner,

an objective at the heart of reflective practice. These elements play influential roles in problem-

solving, decision-making, and the way professionals interact with and respond to others.

Reflective practice promotes awareness of and attention to these elements and the role they play

in observable behaviour, leading to more mindful and effective engagement. With respect to the

course, increasing mastery of PABBAVEM will enable effective collaboration with attendant

benefits to student learning and performance. Background on PABBAVEM is provided below.

Facilitators will want to refer to Assessment A1a for background on the assessment and its

marking criteria. See Detailed Assessment Descriptions and Marking Rubrics, below.

As presumably most students will be in class the first two weeks of the semester, facilitators

should set time aside for critical reflective dialogues meant to help bring thoughts and feelings

that often stay in the mind—and sometimes subconsciously—to the surface and make them

explicit. More than just clarity and a concrete contribution to the students’ academic work in the

course, such critical reflective dialogues should help build a sense of community, collaboration,

and collegiality, not to mention exercise skills students will need working with their stakeholders

in the later conduct of their projects. All up, this activity intends to develop dialogic skills, serves

as an introduction to collaboration (as understood in the course), and develop the skills and

dispositions of the reflective practitioner.

Suggested Format for the Orienting Reflection

There is no template or required format for your Orienting Reflection. The general guidance is

for a 1000 word reflective journal entry. You are asked to address: (a) who you are as a

professional practitioner upon arrival to the course; (b) how this has been shaped or clarified

through previous coursework (in particular 8000 and 8001); (c) your learning aims for the course

(8002); (d) your self-assessment with respect to collaboration; and (e) provide an initial statement

of problem or opportunity, implying at least a brief characterisation of your practice context.

Welcome but not compulsory would be discussion of how and why your [view of your] problem

or opportunity has shifted or evolved during the previous period of time. You may refer to the

Collaboration Assessment Inventory available from the Moodle site or from your facilitator to get

you thinking about your skills and dispositions toward collaboration.

To the 1000 word journal entry, you may write it, speak it, present it in slides or video, sing it,

make a poster of it, whatever. Your creativity and freedom to explore how you reflect and share

your reflections are encouraged. That said, you will want to include some or all of these

elements:

Who Am I? An Introduction to Myself as a Professional Practitioner.

Cues: What do I care about most? What is my preferred learning style? How do I see

myself? How does my education fit with my career and / or practice? What am I best and

worst at?

My Professional Practice: The Context and Environment in which I work.

Cues: What’s it like at work? What are our biggest goals? Our biggest challenges?

Who are our stakeholders, and what are they like? What needs to improve?

My Research Question or the Themes of Most Concern or Interest in my Professional Practice.

Cues: What demands or should demand the most attention in my practice? What are our

missed opportunities? What do I think has to change? What does everyone seemed to be

most concerned about or interested in, and why?

What I want to get out of the Course. My Learning Objectives.

Cues: What were my personal objectives when I started studying the Applied Practice

programme? Are my objectives being met? How have they changed? What have been

my major learnings? What kinds of problems or challenges do I face at work or in study

that might imply some change or learning is needed? Have I received any feedback that

suggests I need professional development? How confident am I in my practice

capabilities?

My Dispositions to Collaboration. My Strengths and Weaknesses when it comes to Teamwork

and Collaboration.

Cues: How well do I work with others? How can I tell / how do I know? What are my

tendencies and habits with respect to teamwork and collaboration? Do people seem to

seek me out to join in team tasks? Whether yes or no, why do you think this is? What are

my strengths and weaknesses? Where do I need to develop at a team-player or effective

collaborator?

My Concerns, Worries, or Anxieties with Respect to the Course.

Cues: What might be standing in the way of my best learning and performance in the

course? What baggage might I be bringing from previous experiences at work or study

that could bias my attitudes and receptiveness? What seems too difficult or too much

work? How does my workload or other outside obligations interfere with my ability to

devote time and energy to the course or my classmates?

At only 1000 words you cannot get into too much detail or ever cover any one area deeply or

thoroughly, so strive for balance between breadth of coverage and modest detail. The Orienting

Reflection is meant to be a starting point for dialogue and collaboration, and a formative learning

experience, rather than a final evaluation that is dismissed as soon as the ink is dry or a grade

received.

PABBAVEM

Perceptions, Attitudes, Beliefs, Biases, Assumptions, Values, Expectations, and Motives

PABBAVEM is an acronym to make it easier to remember key features of interior thinking—

sometimes unwitting—that are known to influence outward behavior. They are of particular

importance to problem-solving and decision-making as we may be led to solutions and courses of

action that cannot be objectively defended. (This does not mean they are wrong; only that we

need to be aware of them and the influence over our behavior they are having.) Implicit in

PABBAVEM is feelings: we may be wishful, desirous, enthusiastic, fearful, and so on, which

may also lead to unfounded conclusions and actions. There would be other aspects of thinking

that are important and influential, such as implicit knowing, intuition, insight, or even inspiration.

Nevertheless, an understanding and mindfulness toward PABBAVEM can improve behaviour

and its consequences. For example, we can “test out” our assumptions before acting upon them.

We can share our beliefs on an issue or phenomenon and solicit the beliefs others hold, thus

leading to mutual understanding. We can inquire and reflect upon behaviour that persists despite

feedback or other consequences that might suggest it should extinguish.

PABBAVEM can be surfaced through various methods and techniques. Whenever individuals

are asked to interpret an image or story or attribute causality elements of PABBAVEM are

drawn-upon and surfaced. “The Ladder of Inference” is a popular technique, as is continually

asking, “why? until root cause or explanation is revealed, or, more likely, “I don’t know” arises.

This is a good result because it identifies the place where further investigation is warranted.

Here, we ask learners to describe situations, scenarios, and events they observed or in which they

were involved. This first challenge is to obtain a level of descriptive detail that others can see or

experience the phenomenon as did the teller. Key focus is what occurred: what were those

involved doing and saying and what were the consequences. Kind of a “critical event” episode.

Then, we ask participants to explain the phenomenon: Why do they think it happened? What

were people trying to accomplish? This is largely explained through PABBAVEM (even if

people have never thought about the subjective nature of reality. “Defending” ones reasoning

and listening to the points of others is a major contributor to learning. This is dialogue and

shared reflection. Not the same as PABBAVEM, but where it becomes evident and can be

explored.

Following is a brief definition and explanation of each PABBAVEM element.

Perception—Perception has a physical aspect and a psychological one. It is the ability to see,

hear, or become aware of something through the senses; but it is also the way in which something

is regarded, understood, or interpreted. Even with average or above physical capabilities to

“sense”, unfortunately, what we sense is filtered through lenses comprising other elements of

PABBAVEM, for example, our biases, beliefs, and assumptions. Fortunately, perception can be

improved (not the same as “favourable perceptions”) by reducing the distorting effects of

PABBAVEM; that is, becoming more objective or at least more mindful of the affects

PABBAVEM is having on our perception of phenomena, their causality, and implications and

consequences of perceptions of phenomena rather than the objective reality of phenomena.

Attitudes—Attitudes are feelings or opinions about something or someone. They come from

values and beliefs. An attitude is the way a person expresses or applies their beliefs and values.

Attitudes are important because they lead to behaviour generally consistent with them, and we

may not link what we do to those attitudes or the values and beliefs on which they are founded;

that is, we may be unaware of the affect they are having on what we do or say, or, in fact, how we

interpret phenomena. They are the “points of view” one holds; kind of like perspective.

Beliefs—Beliefs are internal feelings that something is true, even though that belief may be

unproven or irrational. Beliefs are hard to change, but can. They may need to change for one to

become more effective in the world. It is important to be conscious of our beliefs and to ascertain

how they are affecting our thinking and acting.

Biases—Biases are views, thoughts, and feelings about people or issues that are somehow

skewed or inclined for or against. They tend to be subjective, and are often preconceived or

unreasoned. One can argue a bias vehemently, but objective evidence for the case may be

lacking or dismissed when not congruent with the bias. Biases may be revealed when decisions

or courses of action do not produce what was anticipated… or, paradoxically, they produce

exactly what was intended but this is not, on the whole, an outcome for the greater good. In other

word, biases have power. In any event, we should know what they are: our own and, where

possible, other people’s.

Assumptions—Assumptions are conclusions, understandings, explanations, and interpretations

that people assume to be the case without compelling evidence or reasonable cause. They are the

“givens” and the “taken for granteds” of life and work. They can be true and they can work in

our favour, but we can never be sure until we surface and interrogate them. There may be no

greater cause for failed solutions, interventions, and errors in judgement than their basis in

assumptions. But I assumed… often heard but never justified. In any study or important problem

or decision, assumptions may not be immediately provable or dismissible, but must be made

explicit. This, what is done can be done with those assumptions in mind, possibly leading to their

reformation.

Values—Values are a measure of the worth or importance a person attaches to something; our

values are often reflected in the way we live our lives. Sometimes people say (or feel) they value

something but this is not borne out in how they act. Sometimes values conflict, within a person

or with other people. It is important to be conscious of ones values, and it can be useful for

people to express their values—what is really important to them—in finding a place of common

ground.

Expectations—Expectations are beliefs about what might happen in the future. In some sense,

the stronger they are, the more likely that future might be brought to fruition. On the other hand,

the stronger the expectation, the greater the disappointment or frustration if the expectation is not

realised. It is important to make expectations explicit and, perhaps, negotiate them in

partnerships and when working with others. If people can come to share expectations and

responsibility for their fulfilment (as well as how those expectations should be pursued), then

success is more likely. If expectations are vastly different and cannot be converged, joint

enterprise is likely to fail or come at great cost.

Motives—Motives are reasons for doing something. They are what moves us to act, to say or do

something. They give us direction and purpose. We often attribute motive in others, but seldom

know it, until and unless they can honestly reveal their desires and fears. Attributing motive

wrongly can be disastrous to relationships and may imperil projects. We may or may not know

our own motives, but it is reasonable to assume that knowing our motives might help us to

become more effective and authentic human beings.

Resources

Hays, J. (2015). Citizenship, Democracy, and Professionalism for a Sustainable Future.

Hays, J. (2015). Chaos to capability

Hays ( ). TLP / DRM

2. Lesson on Collaboration and the Collaboration Assessment Inventory (intro)—A1b

The purpose of this activity is to ease students into the practice of collaboration and to begin to

build their skills and positive dispositions toward collaborating. In this case (or, rather, course),

collaboration takes mainly the form of supporting one another to learn more deeply and to

succeed in course assessments. In the end, however, course assessments only really matter to the

degree that they position students to succeed in the projects they undertake in their areas of

professional practice following the course. Thus, the impact of collaboration extends well

beyond the classroom and out into the community. It does this in at least two ways. Positive

extension of student collaboration into the community is increased in so far as their ongoing

collaboration improves the viability of the product (their project proposals) and builds skills and

dispositions of great utility in later engaging with stakeholders in the conduct of their projects,

increasing the likelihood of success.

As indicated in Figure 1 and described in the introduction, collaboration is ongoing in 8002. This

takes the form mostly of iterative review, critique, and feedback on successive assessment

components. As a frame for collaboration, students are encouraged to embrace techniques of

dialogue and, in particular, Critical Reflective Dialogue. Introducing them to the Team Learning

Pyramid (Hays, 2014), with its focus on Dialogue, Reflection, and Mindfulness, can be a useful

addition to any material provided on dialogue and effective collaborative practice. Facilitators

might have students read the article and critique it or discuss it in class. Any topic covered in the

course could be the subject of a session run employing DRM. Early on it is sufficient for

students to be introduced to the concepts and practices of Dialogue, Reflection, and Mindfulness.

In this case, DRM can be used to focus in on what effective collaboration entails.

Collaboration may come naturally to some students; others may struggle with it. Collaboration is

easiest when participants have a particular task on which to focus. In 8002, the successive

assessment tasks provide the focus for collaboration. The Orienting Reflection provides the very

first task on which students will focus. But, here, they have multiple tasks at different levels of

complexity. They have to (1) reflect (develop the OR), (2) do the collaborative task (that is,

review, critique, and provide feedback through engaging in a shared dialogic exchange), while at

the same time (3) they also have to learn or at least apply collaboration, and (4) individually and

collectively reflect upon the entire process. These elements go hand-in-hand. First they

collaborate on reflecting; then they reflect on collaborating.

So, the first, introductory activities on collaboration might go like this.

Week 1

Context / Scenario. Students may or may not know each other. They will most likely not have

completed any reading of other preparation. In class, they will have been introduced to the

course, the semester, and had a briefing with respect to their first assessment, which they have

been given one hour to begin writing. They will have been placed in Study Groups.

Activity. Classmates are randomly assigned to Study Groups (size permitting). Study Groups

meet separately; their only instruction is to get to know one another and discuss their

observations on the course, their classmates and facilitator(s), and the assessment A1a), including

what they did so far during the hour offered to work on it. They have 30 minutes.

After 30 minutes, the class reconvenes as a larger group, and Study Groups are asked to share

how they approached the task and what they accomplished.

Facilitators might expect a cursory reporting on what was done from a task perspective, and little

on process—the nature and quality of interaction, with even less on an obvious thoughtfulness

about process. In any event, this can always be deepened. Facilitator might make a few notes

about “telling” remarks and cues that suggest behaviours benefitting from further discussion and

enquiry.

Once all groups have reported-out (and some individual students probably saying a bit more on

(or off) topic, the facilitator runs through a series of questions or statements to promote reflection

and dialogue (here deeper, more thorough considering of the exercise just undertaken and what

might be gleaned from it).

These are some indicative questions:

Was it clear what the task was? If not, how did you deal with this?

How did you approach the task? How did you organise to get it done?

What roles in the group did you notice? Who was doing what?

What did anyone do to move you along? What helping behaviours did you see?

Did you have any stumbling points or breakdowns? If so, how did you overcome them?

Did everyone seem to contribute equally? Was everyone given a chance, or truly encouraged to

contribute?

How well were people listening? How could you tell?

What were you thinking or feeling but not saying? Were you “present” the entire time?

What is one thing you would like to try to do more or less of, or do differently, in your next

session?

These questions are designed to promote reflection and mindfulness, and to begin to expose

participants to the notion that there are interior conversations going on, sometimes unconscious to

the individual and seldom knowable by others, going on at the same time external dialogue or

exchange is. All this can be achieved with little to no introduction to content. Here, content will

follow.

This facilitated reflective classroom dialogue should be given at least 30 minutes.

It is followed by a lesson on Dialogue, Reflection, and Mindfulness either on Day 1 (Week 1) or

at the beginning of Day 2 (Week 2), and may require students to read some or all of the Team

Learning Pyramid article, or class notes on same.

Week 2

Context / Scenario. Students (except late-starters) have already met and worked with their

Study Groups. They will have completed their Orienting Reflection. Having undergone an

introduction to groupwork the previous week in which the importance of “process consciousness”

was emphasised, students will already be attuned or attentive to the need to be aware of task

accomplishment and process—what they do and how they do it. They will have been introduced

specifically to Dialogue, Reflection, and Mindfulness (DRM), having read about and / or had a

briefing on The Team Learning Pyramid.

Activity. Students will undertake as a group and / or in small groups, depending on size of the

class, to come up with a working definition of collaboration and provide a couple clear examples

of collaboration. They will also be asked to identify five or six behaviours or conditions that

limit or destroy collaboration. These will then be shared in class discussion (20 minutes small

group; 20 minutes large group).

Time and interest permitting, facilitators might run an exercise like The Traffic Metaphor to

generate awareness of behaviours that imperil or undermine collaboration and develop a “Rules

of the Road” for ensuring a safe and pleasant journey. This is guaranteed to be a fun and

memorable exercise with substantial value beyond the course. It is 45 - 75 minute activity,

Students might also, at this time, be given the Collaboration Assessment Inventory, and asked to

discuss and critique it, with special attention to its use in the Study Group. This is a good time to

introduce it as students are expected to use it and, presumably, the aspects of collaboration on

which it focuses provide a solid foundation for effective collaborative work in the course (if not

beyond). Review, critique, and class discussion will take at least 45 minutes.

Any one of these activities can be the subject of a reflective activity designed to crystallise

aspects of Dialogue, Reflection, and Mindfulness. One or more of these “mini-sessions” can be

run, at about 15 minutes per session.

The main collaborative activity, though, is the meeting of the Study Group to review, critique,

and provide feedback on the respective student’s Orienting Reflection, what they did, how they

went about it, and what opportunities exist for improvement exist. The following guidelines can

serve to help students learn through and succeed in this activity.

1. Each student will talk about the Orienting Reflection he or she wrote, what was difficult about

it, what its strengths are, and what value the exercise had. He or she will identify specifically

what areas he or she would like Study Group members to focus on. (5 mins x 3 = 15 mins)

2. Each student will read, review, critique, and provide feedback on at least one other student’s

OR. (30 mins + 5 min x 3 = 45 mins).

3. Study Group will reflect upon and critique the exercise with respect to its effectiveness and

their collaborative technique; then share results with the larger class (15 min small group; 15

mins large group).

Parts of the sharing, review, critique, and feedback could be done on-line or outside of class,

depending on time availability and students and facilitator(s)’ preferences.

3. Activity on Research Question

The very title of this course underscores the importance of the student’s research question.

However, in design, the student’s research question (RQ) is only part of the major final product,

the Project Proposal. There is not a specific assessment of or for the RQ. Envisaged is that

students arrive to the course with a research question more or less formulated, or at least a topic

or theme of interest or concern to them arising from their professional practice. It is also

expected that their research question has evolved or will alter during the course, and the

assessments and activities are designed to help the student define and narrow their research

question, whilst developing a stronger rationale for it (for their project and its approach)

Context / Scenario. Students are expected to provide and explain their research question (or

their questions, concerns, and project ideas in the Orienting Reflection. They will have begun

this in Week 1 and continue in Week 2, and perhaps discussed it with their Study Group members

in general terms. Their Orienting Reflection assessment (A1a) is due at the end of Week 2. This

activity is designed to help them get clearer on the research question and to prepare them for the

following assessment, Context Analysis (A2a). This is an in-class session, though can be run on-

line.

Activity

Week 2

1. Facilitator leads a brief session on “Research Question”, what it is, how it is developed, and

what it might mean in the context of the course and the students’ prospective projects. Examples

of stronger and weaker research questions are provided and critiqued by the class. (20 mins)

2. Students are instructed to articulate their research question or interests as clearly as possible,

and why they think this is important, necessary, or defensible given their understanding of their

work context, and allowed to work individually for 20 minutes to do so. If they cannot specify a

research question, they need to at least identify one or more project aims.

3. Classmates convene in their Study Groups. In turn, each student shares and explains the work

they have done to articulate a research question or project aims. Study Group partners do the best

they can to “put themselves into the sharer’s shoes” and see the context, situation, stakeholders,

problems, and opportunities from their perspective, inquiring to better understand and offering

suggestions on other ways to look at the situation, alternative ways to go about finding out more,

or ways problems and opportunities might be addressed.

Here are some prompts students might find helpful in approaching the task:

What seems to be the area of greatest need or concern in your practice area? What tangible

evidence exists to affirm your assessment?

Who are the key stakeholders involved? What would their respective views on the situation be?

How can you tell?

What are the greatest strengths, advantages, capabilities, and possibilities in your practice area?

What would you hate to lose? How can these be sustained?

Who would have more insight into the way things are or are hoped to unfold?

Where can you go for further information? How can you better inform yourself about your

practice area? What do you need to know?

What solutions or interventions have already been tried (if any), and what impact have they

had? What can you learn from these efforts?

If there are solutions, interventions, or initiatives underway or planned, how can you increase

the probability of them succeeding? How can you assure they have been objectively developed

and critiqued? What evidence can be obtained to show they are sound (or need to be discarded

or revised)?

Week 3

Context / Scenario. Students will have submitted their Orienting Reflection and received their

results and feedback. The purpose of this activity is to enhance and extend the learning from

their respective individual experiences and feedback received so that all members of the Study

Group can obtain greater insight into what possibilities exist for handling their work (their

reflective task, in this instance) and to provide an opportunity for focused collaboration and its

attendant skill-building for improved learning and performance throughout the semester.

Students are expected to share their results with their Study Group partners and balance this

feedback with their own critique of their work. They can do this on-line or in class, as

determined most appropriate and as time permits.

Activity

1. Individual. Students individually review their results / feedback and create a critique of their

own to inform, elaborate on, or refute the results and feedback they received. Do they agree or

not? What might results and feedback have missed, positive or negative, that was in the work.

After the fact, what might have been added, excluded, or done differently that would have

improved the piece? They share this with Study Group partners. (30 - 60 mins)

2. Study Group. Study Group partners review each other’s Orienting Reflection (A1a) and the

results and feedback and individual critiques. They, then, meet and discuss the combined data

and draw “lessons learnt” from the activity and experience. Together they develop a statement of

conclusions and implications, cautions and guidelines for reflective activities in the course and

how these might apply to other assessments. (60 mins individual + 60 mins in group)

3. Large Class. In full class, Study Groups share their learning statements from the previous

steps, and class and facilitator(s) discuss the activity and its products thoroughly.

4. Lesson with activity on Context Analysis (A2a)

The Context Analysis is one of the most substantial and important

components of the course, big in its own right and forming a large part of the

Project Proposal. It informs and provides the context for and target of the

student’s project and its aims, research question, and methodology.

The diagram, or icon, at left was developed to represent a framework for

analysing the context in which a potential project might be appropriately

designed and successfully carried-out. Projects are likely to fail if they are not aligned with the

way things are and happen in an organisation or community, or fail to take these into

consideration if what is intended embodies a change to the way things are. The Context Analysis

is a key aspect of change management—what student projects are all about, ultimately—and

includes Stakeholder Analysis, often highlighted as an important contributor to effective change,

communication, and engagement.

Context / Scenario. The Context Analysis is developed over a two-week period (course Weeks

3 and 4), and submitted at the end of the second week. In their Orienting Reflection (A1a)

students will have introduced their professional practice context, but presumably only at a cursory

level. Results and feedback on their OR and the collaborative-reflective activity subsequently

may have stimulated students to realise more descriptive and concrete detail and evidence are

needed. If undertaken sufficiently, the Context Analysis will produce the level and

comprehensiveness of detail and specificity demanded by the course in general and needed for a

defensible project proposal (A2c) in particular.

In the course schedule outlined above, Week 3 is an on-line week and Week 4 a face-to-face

week. However this runs, students must be provided a “lesson” on the Context Analysis Week 3

to get them started. Week 4 affords and opportunity to continue to work on the CA having the

benefit of Study Group review, critique, and feedback.

Activity

Week 3

1. Students are provided a lesson on the Context Analysis. This is essentially presentation of the

framework and detailing of its respective parts. The basic model, or framework, is shown here:

Economy

Environment

Social-Cultural

Technology

Structure-Organisation

Politics

Sustainability

KM / TNK

Stakeholders

Figure 4. The Context Analysis Model (Framework), showing major sections / lenses and basic

background.

The Context Analysis (assessment A2a) is a written analytical report, thoroughly detailing the

student’s practice area context with respect to his or her initial problem, opportunity, or avenue of

enquiry. While students may use any analytical or diagnostic device(s) with which they are

familiar or would like to learn, they must at the minimum use the Context Analysis Model

provided (see figure). This ensures they at least address the important specified lenses, and have

a frame or template for their analysis.

The report should frame the analysis by first explaining the student’s previously formulated

research question and / or logical framing of an opportunity or problem in your area of practice. It

should then go on to analyse the chosen context using at the minimum the lenses suggested in the

Context Analysis Model. The report should end with conclusions, the intended way forward, and

how this can be justified given the analysis. The refined and applied product of Context Analysis

will be included in your project proposal.

A solid analysis will cover most or all segments of the framework, but is not done merely by

writing-up discrete sections. They must be linked together to depict a meaningful whole and

what this means in terms of the project they will be proposing and the approach to the project

they will be formulating.

A basic template for student Context Analysis reports is provided below.

Assessment A2a Context Analysis–A Template

Preliminary Project Title

Background and Overview

Purpose and Structure of the Report

The Professional Practice Area in a Nutshell

Research Question and / or Project Aims

Tentative Project Description, Focus, and Scope

Detailed Analysis

Economy

Environment

Socio-Cultural Aspects

Technology

Structure-Organisation

Politics

Stakeholders

Sustainability

Leadership

Ethics and Ethical Considerations

Kaupapa Maori and Te Noho Kotahitanga

As a Whole--Bringing it All Together

Implications, Risks, Cautions,

Plan Forward--Basic Next Steps Drawing on Analysis

Week 4

Guidance on Collaboration / Activity for Review and Feedback of Context Analysis (A2a)

Context / Scenario. Hopefully a positive and constructive pattern of collaboration established in

the first three weeks continues and students can bring lessons learnt from their collaborative

activity on the Orienting Reflection to bear on this next assessment, the Context Analysis.

By Week 4, students will have completed part of their Context Analysis, hopefully having written

some part of each section. The collaborative task, here, is to review and critique one another’s

CA reports, perhaps having been briefed by the respective authors as to the specific feedback

they seek—where they feel the most help is warranted.

A substantial document, the CA report will not be read quickly. It will require time and a

thorough review to enable genuine critique and constructive feedback. Thus, students might be

encouraged to read the reports in preparation for Week 4 (face-to-face) or continue to review

after and outside class.

Activity

1. Each student reviews at least one Study Group partner’s report and writes-up critique and

feedback notes, identifying particular strengths and areas where clarification or revision might be

needed. (90 mins) This can happen in class or on-line, but note that Week 3 is an OL session, so

this work might comprise part of the students’ workloads outside of class.

2. Students exchange and react to written feedback, outlining points they agree with, disagree

with and why, and need further clarification or guidance. (30 mins) Again, this can happen in or

outside class.

3. Students meet in Study Group and discuss the reports, the feedback, and the responses to it,

agreeing on suitable next steps for each student. (60 mins). This might best be done FTF in class

on Week 4.

4. Students individually incorporate feedback and recommendations (as relevant), refining their

CA reports. They submit their final versions at the end of Week 4. (60 minutes +) This may be

done outside of class time.

5. Lesson / Template for Compare and Contrast Data-Gathering Methods, Assessment

Item (A1c)

Context / Scenario. Students will be writing the comparison and contrasting of potential data-

gathering methods (Assessment A1c) for their project over the next four weeks, submitting it at

the end of Week 8. They will meet FTF during this period only Week 7 so careful scheduling

and self-regulation are needed to keep them making purposeful headway. The facilitator(s) will

be available during this period for meetings and calls, assisting students through the task. It is

anticipated that most students will need guidance and reassurance.

Given students will be “sent off” to research and work on their assignment on their own, clear

and helpful guidance must be provided in the FTF session Week 4. Students will also benefit

from a framework or set of commitments for working together during the periods outside of class.

Study Group interaction is expected to be important for helping individual students keep on track

and to feel connected to one another and the course.

By this point in Week 4, students will have had a deep look into their professional practice and

the context in which their projects will be conducted. They should have a clear idea of what they

are going to attempt to do with their projects, and what their research question or aims are. They

are unlikely to know how to proceed, unless they have had considerable project experience in

their professional roles. Even if they possess confidence, they not know how to bring rigor to

their projects. This next assessment and associated activities are designed to help them identify

and, ultimately, defend a project methodology, in particular, the data-gathering methods they will

include in their project proposal.

Notes for later:

1. Not only will students be expected to outline one or more defensible data-gathering method

for their proposal, but they will also need to describe how data will be analysed.

2. At this point there is no “content” on data-gathering methods or data analysis. While this is a

shortfall needing to be immediately addressed, it is also the case that no 15 credit course could

comprehensively present sufficient material on the range of data-gathering methods and data-

analysis techniques and accomplish the other objectives of this course. A “survey” approach will

be taken.

Activities Week by Week.

Week 4 (FTF). Students will be given a lesson on survey of better-known qualitative and

quantitative data-gathering methods, along with the basics of what, why, when, and how they are

used. They will be provided selected readings addressing types of data-gathering methods and

their advantages and disadvantages. Part of the lesson will have them select appropriate methods

for cases provided and defend their selection. (180 mins)

Week 5 (OL). Students will be tasked to (a) identify and explain the data they need to be able to

answer their research question or pursue their project aims and (b) define what they see as their

essential sources of data, such as various stakeholder perspectives, published policies, statistics,

where and how other similar projects have been conducted. They share this on-line with Study

Group partners, review one another’s, and provide critique and feedback. (90 mins individual

research, conceiving, and writing + 60 mins reviewing and preparing feedback + 60 mins

exchange = 210 mins)

Students needing any assistance whatsoever are encouraged to visit the library and / or TPA.

Week 6 (OL).

Step 1. Students identify three to five possible data-gathering methods that feasibly could work

for their project. This requires a modest amount of research. They conduct and share a quick

overview of the methods, providing their strengths and weaknesses. Study Group partners react

to this and provide any feedback and guidance that might be helpful.

Step 2. Students narrow their range of methods down to two that seem most compelling. They

write up their rationale for this, also requiring some research, and proceed to learn more about the

methods and how and when they are used.

Week 7 (FTF). The bulk of this face-to-face session involves students working on their data-

gathering method comparison and contrast, individually, in Study Groups, and larger class, as

relevant.

Step 1. In their Study Groups (or in class, depending on number of students), students, in turn,

explain how they arrived at the two methods they will be exploring in detail and most-likely

including in their assessment (A1c). The cover the strengths and weaknesses of the various

methods, while they ruled certain methods out, and why the chosen ones seem to fit best with

their projects (the data they need and best sources). Study Group partners have the chance to

react and contribute to one another’s thinking. (60 mins)

Step 2. Students are free to go to the library and / or do on-line research, gathering further detail

on their methods, particularly when and how they are used and any risks or other downsides they

need to consider. They may use this time to begin or continue writing. (90 mins)

Step 3. As a class, students share their discoveries, insights, and experiences, and go off

confidently to continue their work in preparation for submitting their critical analysis at the end

of the next week. (30 mins)

Week 8 (OL). At the end of this week, students will be submitting their data-gathering

comparison assignment. This is scheduled as an on-line week, so students have more time to

write-up their reports. Considerable collaboration amongst Study Group partners is expected this

week to assist one another to submit assignments that are as technically and analytically solid and

professional in presentation as possible.

In preparation for or to support the review, critique, and feedback involved in this collaborative

task, students should refer to the marking rubric for A1c and the suggested template, below, to

ensure important sections and details are covered.

Suggested Template / Structure for Assessment A1c

While there is no prescribed template for Assessment A1c, students and facilitators may find the

format below suitable. It may be adapted to preference and to suit the nature of the project and

methods considered.

Assessment A1c Compare and Contrast Data-Gathering Methods–A Template

Preliminary Project Title

Background and Overview

Purpose and Structure of the Report The Professional Practice Context Research Question and / or Project Aims Tentative Project Description, Focus, and Scope

Data-Gathering Methods—A Critical Analysis

Introduction to Data-Gathering

Kinds of Data Needed by Proposed Project

Sources of Data Needed by Proposed Project

Selected Range of Feasible Data-Gathering Methods and Relevance

The Methods Chosen for Analysis and Why

Method 1

Description

Strengths and Weaknesses Contending with Downsides (Assurance)

Method 2

Description

Strengths and Weaknesses Contending with Downsides (Assurance)

Critical Comparison

Final Selection

How was method chosen / what makes it the most logical choice?

Conclusion Summary Next Steps

6. Lesson on A2b (Project Proposal)—Intro

Context / Scenario. Students will be writing their Project Proposal Weeks 9-11, probably

beginning Week 8, if not before. Week 8 is scheduled as an on-line week, so there will not be a

class meeting unless preferred by students and facilitator(s). Nonetheless, students will benefit

from guidance and direction on the writing of their proposals.

The fact is, however, that their proposals are largely written already, which is why there are only

three weeks set aside for the task. Students have analysed and portrayed their professional

practice context (A2a), developed and refined their research question or aims though various

assessments and activities, and determined the appropriate data-gathering method or methods for

their project (A1c).

Time permitting, some discussion of the Project Proposal can be had Week 7. In any event,

students should be assured that the proposal is largely done and represents mostly an effort to

condense and focus the work they’ve done, shaping it to a proposal format. A suggested format

is provided below.

Students should be advised that the formal proposal, written to impress and influence, should be

near flawless, with respect to all aspects of presentation, structure, grammar, punctuation, font,

images, logic, and flow. They may be encouraged to be creative in use of layout, colour, images,

diagrams, references, use of fonts, and so on; but should remember that language and images

must be tasteful, relevant, and appropriate for your audience (sensitive to culture, inclusiveness,

concerns).

Activity. Students should be given an introduction the concept, purpose, and general features of

project proposals in general and the Project Proposal assessment, in particular, for 8002 (A2b),

and provided ample opportunity to

discuss and question. The diagram

presented further on as Figure 3 (a

small version of which is provided

here for reference) might be useful in

this regard, as it shows how the

previous assessment components fit

within the Project Proposal.

Some mention of the distinction or

differences between a research thesis

proposal and an Applied Practice

proposal is warranted, along with the

strengths and weaknesses of each

within academic and industry

contexts.

The basic outline of an Applied Practice Project Proposal is provided below.

Economy

Environment

Social-Cultural

Technology

Structure-Organisation

Politics

Sustainability

KM / TNK

Week

1

Week

14

Week

2

Week

3

Week

4

Week

5

Week

6

Week

7

Week

8

Week

9

Week

10

Week

11

Week

12

Week

13

Week

15

Orienting

Reflection

Context

Analysis

Methods Analysis

and Comparison

Written Project

Proposal

Final

Reflection

Collaboration

10% 15% 15% 15% 15%

15%

Final Project Proposal

Introduction and Background

Research Question (or project topic)

Project Aims

Project Context

Methodology

Bigger Picture

Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

Schedule / Implementation Plan

Ethical Considerations

Kaupapa Maori / Te Noho

Kotahitanga Influences

Conclusion and

Recommendations

Appendices (where appropriate)

Project

Presentation15%

Presentation

to

Stakeholders

Assessment A2b Applied Practice Project Proposal

Cover Page

Title

Author

Intended Audience / Stakeholder

Abstract

Proposal Project Title Introduction and Background (positioning of your proposal with respect to a specified Research

Question or aims previously formulated and / or logical framing of an opportunity or problem in your area of practice to be addressed through your project).

Purpose and Structure of the Report Statement on Project Proposed (nature, need, and how project will help).

Research Question and / or Project Aims Approval, Funding, or other Support Needed (requirements or expectations of recipients).

Project Context (a concise adaption of the Context Analysis conducted previously and shaped to support the project and methodology chosen).

Methodology (description the methods chosen and strong defence for the methodology proposed. Includes suitable reference to context and support from the literature and other relevant sources).

Lessons from the Wider Literature and other Relevant Sources of Information

(on related projects conducted in similar contexts in New Zealand or elsewhere, along with discussion of methods used, results, and other implications for your project. Details could include risks, costs, management / implementation considerations, expected elapsed time to see results, indicators of project success. Should include coverage of stakeholder engagement and references on Kaupapa Maori, Te Noho Kotahitanga, and other relevant sources).

Critical Success Factors (CSFs) (based on and linked to your analysis of context, proposed methodology, and Review of the Literature, what are Critical Success Factors for the successful completion of your project?)

Schedule / Implementation Plan (a high-level overview of project phases, critical activities, and

estimations of time required).

Ethical Considerations and Conflict of Interest

Kaupapa Maori and Te Noho Kotahitanga (how Maori philosophy, values, principles, and practices are incorporated and embodied in your project).

Conclusion Justification (strong justification for proposed project based on the logic presented).

Recommendations

(specific defensible recommendations grounded in your analysis and evidence provided; in the final analysis, this is a “sales pitch”, intended to convince stakeholders who would be funding and / or approving your project and whose involvement you might need to ensure it succeeds).

Summary (report summary of key points, concerns, objectives).

7. Guidance / Activity on Critiquing and Providing Feedback on Written Project Proposal

(A2b)

Context / Scenario. Over Weeks 8-11 students will have been pulling their formal project

proposals together, required to submit them at the end of Week 11. During this time, they would

have had one face-to-face meeting Week 9. These three to four weeks are largely an independent

study period, though students will be expected to work with their Study Groups and facilitator(s)

will be available on-line or for scheduled meetings (on Friday mornings, where possible) with

students one-on-one or in small groups.

Activity. The basic plan for Weeks 9-11 are as follows.

Week 9 – In Week 9 students develop and share their project proposal outlines, including enough

information in each section so reviewers obtain a sense of what will be covered. Study Group

partners review, critique, and feedback on same.

Week 10 – Week 10 is a writing and formatting week, and a check-in and review with Study

Group partners and course facilitator(s) is expected.

Week 11 – Collaborative activity will be its most intensive around Week 11 as students will be

finalising their proposals for submission. Review, critique, and feedback is anticipated to be as

time-consuming as it is important in assuring proposals of the highest-quality possible are

submitted. Incorporating such feedback as relevant, student finalise and submit their proposals.

8. Guidance on Development and Conduct of Project Presentations

Context / Scenario. Project Proposal Presentations will be conducted on Weeks 12 and 13.

Scheduling will be somewhat determined by availability of desired stakeholders. Weeks 12 and

13 are considered face-to-face sessions and students are expected to be present and / or available.

By this point in the semester, students have completed and received at least initial feedback on

their formal written project proposals. They will receive instruction and guidance on

development and conduct of PPPs Week 11 on-line and will have had a least one week to create

their presentations and receive critique and feedback on them from Study Group partners.

There is no prescribed content for a lesson introducing the project presentation. Any overview of

presentation techniques would suffice. It is probably sufficient to facilitate a conversation on

what makes and breaks a presentation, and what best practices suggest of platform management

and performance.

One proven-useful approach to handling the content of such a lesson is to have students

brainstorm and prioritise the elements of a winning presentation—how they would assess

themselves or like to be assessed—that is, come up with a rubric or marking criteria. Discussing

and prioritising these marking criteria / elements virtually assure that students share am

understanding of what is possible and important.

In any event, there is no required format for the project proposal presentation. Students are

encouraged to be unique and creative (within reason). Stipulations includes that the presentation

goes no longer than 12 minutes and that up to five minutes for questions and discussion should be

reserved. The presentation should be geared to deliver to real stakeholders (it is not merely an

academic exercise). Stakeholders might be a mix of people, including the professional

practitioner’s manager and teammates, community groups / representatives, clients, policy

bodies, subject matter experts, zoning authorities (as relevant), or others, as well as course

facilitators, programme administrators, and classmates.

Students should talk through with their Study Group partners the content and format of their

presentations. And all students should refer to the marking guide for Assessment A2c provided.

Once all students have presented, they should meet (on-line or in person) with their Study Group

partners to discuss and reflect upon the experience, outcomes, and draw lessons learnt. They

will have time to do this Week 14 (an OL week). This is important and will feed into the students

Final Reflection (A2d).

9. Guidance / Activity / Template for Final Reflection (A2d)

Context / Scenario. The Final Reflection is the last step and assessment in 8002. Its purpose is

to facilitate consolidation and deepening of learning, help students make clear connections

between what they have done and its relevance to their professional practice development, and

document their learning in ways that the other tangible work products (Context Analysis,

Comparison and Contrasting of Data-Gathering Methods, Project Proposal, and Project Proposal

Presentation) cannot. It also serves as the means to convey the Collaboration Assessment

Inventory and to interpret its results and their implications.

The Final Reflection is prepared Weeks 14 and 15, and submitted on the Friday of that final

week. This gives students a chance to reflect upon the entire semester, process the experience of

their project proposal presentation just recently conducted, and have a final reflective dialogue

with Study Group partners focussing on collaboration and the CAI.

Possibilities for the Final Reflection

There is no required format for the Final Reflection, and novel approaches are welcome. That

said, structure is important and students should have and maintain a clear outline for their

reflections. This ensures that the key points get said in some logical, sensical fashion. Students

will want to address some or all of the following aspects, perhaps in sections:

Personal Learning Journey. This is a written articulation of your learning through the course, including referral to your Initial Orienting Reflection. What have you learned about yourself, others, your professional practice and its context, and how did this occur (what facilitated it)? Most important: are you changing or have you changed as a result of the course, and how and why? What might be the benefits (and costs) of this change? You will be assessed on your completeness, depth, and inclusion of examples.

Learning Applications. Of all the knowledge you acquired, skills you built, or dispositions developed, how are you going to (or might) apply them to your professional practice development and your organisation or community context? Of particular interest is how you interact with people and your collaboration skills and orientations, and the implications these have for your professional practice.

Major Learning Challenges and Opportunities. What did you find most challenging, how did you respond to these challenges, what are the implications for your continuing development as a professional practitioner? What can or should you do to further your professional development?

Feedback from Peers, Teachers, and other Stakeholders. What feedback have you received and inferred this semester with respect to your performance, and how are you contending with it? What are the implications for your professional practice and development? How might feedback on your performance impact on this and / or other projects and tasks? What other sources of performance feedback might you seek to further inform what you are hearing or surmising?

Insights, Observations, Discoveries, and Interpretations of Self and Others. What are some of the key behaviours you have observed in / from classmates, teachers, and other stakeholders this semester in so far as they bear on professional practice and your effectiveness as a professional practitioner? How do you interpret these behaviours and why? How can you characterise your behavioural tendencies, and what are the implications for your professional practice and development as a professional?

PABBAVEM. What have your learned about perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, biases, assumptions, values, expectations, and motives, and the role they play in problem-solving, decision-making, and other behaviour, including how people interact and respond to events, situations, and other people? What specific aspects of PABBAVEM have you detected in yourself and what consequences or implications of this can you reveal or speculate upon? In addition to these suggested areas of reflection on which students might focus, there might be a section on skills and capabilities that have been developed or enhanced through the course, and clearly explaining what contributed to this learning. A statement on the relevance and applicability of the course would be most welcome. Students might also talk about their favourite parts of the course, and why.

In every case, specific examples are needed.

DETAILED ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND MARKING RUBRICS

OVERALL CONCEPT OF ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS

The block diagram below shows the relationship of the assessment components and how they all

(save one) build on another towards the final assessment pieces, the Project Proposal and its

Presentation to Stakeholders. Each section of the proposal is developed during a respective phase

of the course (semester).

Figure 3. Assessment Relationship Diagram--contribution of assessment components to the project proposal and its

presentation.

Figure 3 is a high-level view of the entire course, showing major focus areas at respective periods

across the 15 weeks of the semester and the related assessment components at each step along the

way. Assessment is continuous and may appear excessive at first glance. However, assessments

are formative and accumulative, each building-upon one another and contributing, ultimately, to

the major piece of assessment for the course—and, indeed, a critical milestone in the

programme—the completion of a project proposal.

The contribution of the various assessment pieces to the project proposal and its presentation are

shown by the arrows from the assessment items to their respective section of the proposal. The

reason the proposal only carries 15% of course assessment weight, for example, is because

students will have written substantial parts by the time they finalise and submit it, the bulk of

which comes from their Context Analysis (CA) and Methods Analysis and Comparison (MAC).

The Orienting Reflection (OR), Context Analysis, and Methods Analysis and Comparison all are

designed to help students define and refine their Research Question (RQ), that is, to come up with

a topic for their thesis—a defensible problem or opportunity to pursue as a project. With a full

and objective understanding of their practice area context, students are assured of proposing a

Economy

Environment

Social-Cultural

Technology

Structure-Organisation

Politics

Sustainability

KM / TNK

Week

1

Week

14

Week

2

Week

3

Week

4

Week

5

Week

6

Week

7

Week

8

Week

9

Week

10

Week

11

Week

12

Week

13

Week

15

Orienting

Reflection

Context

Analysis

Methods Analysis

and Comparison

Written Project

Proposal

Final

Reflection

Collaboration

10% 15% 15% 15% 15%

15%

Final Project Proposal

Introduction and Background

Research Question (or project topic)

Project Aims

Project Context

Methodology

Bigger Picture

Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

Schedule / Implementation Plan

Ethical Considerations

Kaupapa Maori / Te Noho

Kotahitanga Influences

Conclusion and

Recommendations

Appendices (where appropriate)

Project

Presentation15%

Presentation

to

Stakeholders

relevant project. Having learnt more about the nature of related problems and opportunities in

similar contexts and how they may be addressed, the methodology they propose to conduct their

project will be more defensible.

Not shown directly, but very significant, is the important role of peer feedback, contribution, and

collaboration through the aegis students’ Study Group as they work toward their project proposal,

its presentation, and ultimately, to their Final Reflection (FR).

8002 LEARNING MATRIX—OBJECTIVES, ACTIVITIES, ASSESSMENTS

8002 LEARNING MATRIX—OBJECTIVES, ACTIVITIES, ASSESSMENTS

APPENDICES