ࡱ> {|5@ #bjbj22 XX   .b.b.b8fb*c$h ff(gggg h h$Rޚɖtggttɖggޖwwwt4ggwtwwxX7ge 4ӕb.bu@($ 0$(Su8P77Hhkwn,phhhɖɖX\Dw(\Teaching and Learning Research Skills through Collaboration: The way forward Sue Waite and Bernie Davis Faculty of Education University of Plymouth Introduction Working together and thinking in a critical way are important skills that contribute both to students learning and to their performance in the workplace. Collaboration has been recognised as essential to effective learning in todays rapidly changing times (Chrislip & Larson 1994). However, although institutions may advocate collaboration, their approaches have tended to focus on the merit of individuals rather than modify their structures and processes to facilitate collaborative action (Komives, electronic source). Recent government reports in the UK (DfEE, 1998a; DfEE, 1998b) have focused on the importance of lifelong learning both for the benefit of individuals and also for the nation as a whole. A vision of a learning society has been advocated if we are to respond to the rapidly changing demands of the 21st century effectively. Supporting people in their continuing acquisition of knowledge and skills, such as thinking effectively about their learning, is seen as contributing to the requirements of the knowledge-based global economy that now exists (National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education 1997). This focus on learning for life, particularly in the context of increasing participation rates in higher education, is acknowledged by the University of Plymouth in its Learning and Teaching Strategy (2002). Within this document, one aspect of the universitys mission is to develop students capable of critical reasoning and collaborative work. All students on BA undergraduate programmes are required to develop Graduate Attribute Skills which include working with others and critical thinking (Learning and Teaching Strategy, 2002). It has been found that students tend to match their learning strategies to the perceived demands of the task, such that if memory of facts or coverage of certain texts are seen as advantageous to scoring marks, then these will be emphasised (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991 cited by de la Harpe & Radloff, undated, p6). Therefore, unless collaborative modes of working and critical thinking are embedded in course requirements, it may be that students will not see a need to engage in them. On the other hand, individual and cultural dispositions toward collaboration or critical thinking may promote them, for example, Tang (1996) postulates that the collectivist tradition in Chinese culture may encourage group learning despite highly individualistic infrastructures in educational establishments. We agree with Bruffee (1999) that both co-operative and collaborative learning are educational activities that are essentially about helping students to learn by working together on substantive issues and that their long-term aims are very similar. In practice, the two terms are often used interchangeably, but this may lead to fuzziness in pedagogical focus. Panitz (electronic source) definitions of the two concepts; Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle where individuals are responsible for their actions, including learning and respect the abilities and contributions of their peers; Co-operation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of a specific product or goal through people working together in groups suggest that distinct epistemologies underpin them. Biggs and Tang (1998) distinguish between epistemological positions of constructivism, where meaning is created by the learner through individual or social activity and is dependent on the learners motives and prior knowledge and objectivism, where knowledge is decontextualised and already exists to be understood. Collaboration emphasises process in learning, while co-operation focuses on product. In a co-operative model, the teacher sets the agenda; in a collaborative model, there is a shared control and responsibility for learning between tutor and student. Bilics (electronic source, p2) elaborates Collaborators do not rely on adult [or expert] guidance. Instead, they create a fluid or dynamic zone of proximal development in which they move in and out of the role of more capable peer. This theoretical rationale for collaborative learning comes from Vygotsky (1978) who gives prominence to the importance of social relationships for thinking and learning. The way that we think about things is determined and transmitted to us by a social group and the fruits of common perspectives arrived at through debate, argument, negotiation and discussion. Cognitive growth relies on collaboration by a community of learners. Vygotskys zone of proximal development (ZPD) refers to the difference between what a pupil can do alone and what the pupil could achieve with the help of teachers or in collaboration with more capable peers. Teaching research skills in a collaborative group including both students and tutors creates opportunities for students to benefit from the expertise of other individuals and learn from the involvement in this social group (Thousand et al 1994; Forman & Cazden 1985). From the early theorising of Lewin (1935) and Deutsch (1949) it is possible to argue that the way interdependence, i.e. the way that students are supported and challenged when working together, is structured determines how students interact and this determines instructional outcomes. The quality of peer relationships has widespread and powerful impact on individuals cognitive and social development (Thousand et al. 1994, p. 38). According to Bilics (electronic source p5/6), collaborative work also requires time, non-judgmental dialogue and a common focus, whereby problems are seen as group problems and not an individuals. When evaluating the success of competitive, individualistic and cooperative efforts, it has been found that collaborative learning promotes higher achievement, higher self-esteem, increased higher-level reasoning, more frequent generation of new ideas and solutions and greater transfer or generalisation from one situation to another (Johnson & Johnson, 1989 cited in Thousand et al 1994). Students also benefit from better relationships, better attitudes towards subject matter and greater collaborative skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1989 cited in Thousand et al 1994). The collaborative approach as described by Thousand et al. (1994) is most closely aligned with the intentions of our research. The aim is to aid the students in creating their own personal meanings and understandings through dialogue and discussion. A collaborative learning model as set out by Reid et al. (1989) contains five phases, which broadly relate to the stages that our students went through, although not all took place in the tutorial time: Engagement- the tutors provided a structured overview of the benefits of collaboration and what it entails. Exploration- students and tutors discussed and explored research issues and tasks in a group with interim time for the students to link the information with their own research project. Transformation- students used the information and experience from the group tutorials to help them organise, clarify and elaborate aspects of their research projects. Presentation- the students presented their findings and aspects of the learning to a group of 8 plus tutors. Reflection- the students had the opportunity to evaluate the process that they had experienced. The phases of collaboration as illustrated by Reids model were in contrast to the traditional means of teaching research skills where a series of lectures is followed by individual tutorials. The development of critical thinking From a social constructivist standpoint, collaboration should therefore help students to develop their thinking and reasoning powers through exposure to alternative perspectives in group work. A staged approach to critical thinking development across domains of knowledge, self and world as developed by Barnett (1997 cited in Johnston, Mitchell, Ford and Myles 2003, p3/4) may offer a useful structure for the concept, but it might also straitjacket more fluid forms of criticality. For example, as the model appears to move from self-reflection to reflection on other than oneself, it sits uneasily with Vygotskys notions of the zone of proximal development (1978) whereby an individual can achieve more in the presence of support. Collaborative work brings external alternative perspectives, which may be less likely to be considered when working alone within an individuals epistemological standpoint (Griffin, 2003). Fisher (2003) argues clarity about what is involved in critical thinking is important if it is to be taught. She suggests it includes the ability to: articulate a contextual awareness of ones own position, through identifying the impact of ones own influences and background; identify ones own values, beliefs and assumptions; consider other perspectives or alternative ways of viewing the world, i.e. being able to identify what perspectives are missing from ones own account; identify how ones own views can have a particular bias that privileges one view over another; perceive contradictions and inconsistencies in ones own story or account of events; and imagine other possibilities, i.e. a capacity to envision alternatives. (Fisher, 2003, p.317). Some of these qualities, for example articulating ones own viewpoint and considering other perspectives, are also likely to influence how students respond in collaborative learning situations. Kong (2001, p 4) cites several sources (e.g. Norris & Ennis 1989) to support the assertion that dispositions to critical thinking are primary in the use of critical thinking skills. The impact of such skills is therefore dependent on the will or desire to employ them. In addition, critical thinking self-confidence, i.e. trusting ones ability to reason, will clearly influence the extent to which they are utilised (Kong 2001 p5). Norris and Ennis (1989 cited in Kong, 2001, p 4) list critical thinking dispositions, which we have summarised into 4 broad areas. We suggest that critical thinkers value: Valid and comprehensive informationTry to be well informedUse credible sources and mention themTake into account the total situationPrecision and focusSeek a statement of the thesis or questionSeek reasonsKeep their thinking relevant to the main pointKeep in mind the original or most basic concernWithhold judgement when the evidence and reasons are insufficientDeal in an orderly manner with the parts of a complex wholeAlternative perspectivesLook for alternativesAre open minded and seriously consider points of view other than their own Reason from starting points with which they disagree without letting the disagreement interfere with their reasoningAre sensitive to the feelings, level of knowledge, and degree of sophistication of othersCritical appraisal of their own and others views Seek reasonsTake a position and change a position when the evidence and reasons are sufficient to do soEmploy their critical thinking abilities(Table 1. Adapted from Norris & Ennis 1989, p12 cited in Kong, 2001, p4) This breakdown forms a useful framework within which to examine instances of critical thinking or proto-critical thinking, i.e. signs that critical thinking is developing, in the students in our research. Collaborative Learning and Critical Thinking in Higher Education Although research on collaborative learning in higher education is limited there is a growing interest in the subject. Thus far what research there is suggests that there may be an inappropriate understanding of learning (Bruffee, 1999), i.e. that knowledge is something to be imparted or conferred by an authority rather than socially constructed. He suggests what has yet to be fully acknowledged is that students come to university already competent members of, probably, several communities and their success in higher education depends upon their ability to become full members of this new community (Bruffee, 1999). If HEIs teaching and research was organised to promote collaborative study at all levels, this might yield a fuller acknowledgement of students existing learning, understanding and experience. A further difficulty arises particularly in the context of the widening participation agenda. Students joining the university in the 3rd year having done foundation degrees or those entering higher education through non-standard routes may not have been acculturated in the discourse of university. McKendree, Small, Stenning and Conlon (2002) suggest a lack of shared representation for concepts may get in the way of proper understanding and create barriers to students making knowledge their own. They argue that the best representation almost always lies beneath the surface of the given information and requires learners to engage in a deep way, often in collaboration with others, to impose their own framework on the problem (McKendree et al., 2002,p.59). This type of deep approach involving a search for understanding is fundamental to movement away from transmission approaches to collaborative ways of teaching and learning. As for the future development of critical thinking in higher education, Soden and McLellan (2000) found very low incidences, between 9 and 20%, of critical thinking in undergraduate assignments, even amongst some highly graded assignments. They suggest that this may be due to a lack of clarity on the part of educators about educational terms and what thinking critically might mean, although it might also indicate a lower priority for critical thinking in grading. It may also signal a misunderstanding on the part of students about what justification of their practice or argument might mean, if the need to raise alternative perspectives and evaluate them has not been made explicit (McKendree et al 2002). Johnston et als (2003) reference to clues to course requirements (p.11), as if they are mysterious artefacts, is relevant to these issues of transparency, common understanding and shared representations of what being critical might mean. Pedagogic implications For students to work together and learn in a collaborative way some attention needs to be given to the roles of the tutors. It is not enough merely to provide a space for discussion and then step aside to wait for collaboration to happen. Although talk and active participation are essential to collaboration, motivation, direction and affect in the engagement of these activities is influenced by what the tutors do or dont do. In order to facilitate collaboration within the group we drew on theories relating to social learning (Vygotsky 1978; Tharp and Gallimore, 1988) and the guided construction of knowledge (Mercer, 1995) and drew on a number of associated teaching approaches to inform our responsive style to the students. The Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) refers to a situation where a learner is enabled to achieve something with the help of a more knowledgeable or capable person. How this is accomplished has been discussed in different ways with a number of different considerations. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) view teaching as assisting performance through the ZPD. Teaching takes place when assistance is offered at the points in the performance that need help. Mercer (1995) and Wood (1988) focus on the importance of the sensitivity needed to scaffold learning or to teach contingently. If a tutor is scaffolding a students learning she must be sensitive to the competence that the student possesses and decreased the amount of support as the student becomes more independent. Dialogue offers one method of scaffolding. Pithers and Soden (2000 p 247) argue that the sort of human dialogue characteristic of [] small-group tutorials offers suitable support to the processes involved in critical thinking, not least because issues of power between tutor and student may be attenuated in a collaborative context. Teaching contingently means that the tutor will offer support based on the degree of understanding that is exhibited by the student. If something is not understood then help is forthcoming; but if understanding is evident then the tutor steps back so the students can take more initiative. Mercer (1995) argues that a guided construction of knowledge is facilitated by teacher interaction with learners and the way learners construct knowledge together in collaborative activities. Factors which may inhibit critical thinking are curriculum design that continues to focus on content rather than skills, and teaching behaviour that keeps the responsibility for learning with the lecturer rather than focusing on links to students own learning and experience; while scaffolding through metacognitive clarification of thought processes may support it (Pithers & Soden, 2000). Raths et al (1966 cited in Pithers & Soden, 2000 p 241) suggests that comparing, interpreting, observing, summarising and classifying; suggesting hypotheses; taking decisions; creating; criticising and evaluating; designing investigations; identifying assumptions; and coding , gathering and organising data or information as well as applying principles to new situations constitute good thinking skills. This list suggests that research tasks offer a particularly apposite context for the development of critical thinking skills, since these are reflected in the research process. The context of learning critical thinking skills is important, given evidence (e.g. Bereiter & Scardamalia 1993 cited in Pithers & Soden 2000 p241) that good content knowledge and good thinking skills are strongly related. Our research The Teaching and Learning Research Skills through Collaboration project was a small step towards providing these opportunities to both students and staff. It arose from our interest in a perceived cultural divide in the university between teaching and research, whereby lecturers emphasised one or other aspect of their work, and our belief in the value of collaboration. Our research design offered opportunities to combine these aspects and was awarded a University of Plymouth Teaching Fellowship to explore the possibilities. This initiative forms part of a move within the University of Plymouth to develop as a Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning in promoting strategies for innovative learning. The context for our research Our research is based on 6 collaborative group sessions in which 7 students discussed the progress of their 3rd year research projects. However, it is important to recognise the academic context within which this research is embedded. All 3rd year students on the BA Early Childhood Studies (ECS) programme are required to undertake a research project that results in an individual assessment mark that is a large contribution to the final degree. Whilst there is a developing ethos of collaboration and an understanding of social learning in the ECS team, the assigning of individual tutors to individual students may bring with it certain assumptions of tutor expertise and create expectations about how students will be supported in tutorials. The collaborative sessions began at the end of the first semester when the students were finishing directed tasks in which they presented an initial literature review on an area of interest and a review of possible methods to be used for their research. They were at the point at which they were thinking about narrowing the focus and formulating a research question(s) or a title. The sessions were run throughout the second semester alongside the students gathering of empirical data, analysing that data and writing up their final project. The driving force behind the collaborative sessions was to provide for the students the opportunity to be exposed to different points of view not only on their individual research projects but also on their peers projects; and by contributing their own viewpoints to the group discussion, to support them in clarifying their thinking and justifying their research decisions. We had no predetermined criteria by which to teach collaborative or critical thinking skills but were interested to explore the sessions in an inductive and spontaneous way with social constructivism as the underlying epistemology. Although we discussed this and our intentions, this does not mean that the process was easy or entirely successful. Attitudes and behaviours associated with a transmission model of knowledge can be deeply seated not easily shaken, as we discuss later. Participants Our original intention was to establish a common focus for the group in doing research on forest schools, to provide a sense of purpose to interaction and sharing of ideas. In the event, only 3 students on this module elected to take part in the research on forest schools. The eventual participants were 7 final year BA undergraduates in Early Childhood Studies, undertaking the Research module for a small scale study and looking at topics including forest school (3), gender (2), bullying (1) and parents with learning difficulties (1), and ourselves, a lecturer in Early Childhood Studies and a researcher in the Faculty of Education. Because of the range of topics, some students may have found it more difficult than others to see a shared purpose and may have lacked motivation to make contributions. One other student elected to be tutored individually rather than take part in the research. All students had attended a series of lectures on different research methods and issues and were then usually assigned to a single tutor for individual tutorials to support their research design and report writing. We combined our groups of tutees to form a single collaborative group of 9, including ourselves as tutor participants. Methodology In designing our research, we were guided by our belief in social constructivism; that collaboration was a positive way to work and learn. We wanted to explore the collaborative process but also be part of it, not only in our collaboration in researching the process but also in the students co-construction of knowledge through their discussions. We therefore adopted an action research methodology that enabled us to participate and reflect from within the experience. We were driven by a belief that collaboration offered a supportive context for consideration of alternative perspectives on issues, through expression of different viewpoints by group members. Our approach was based on the following assumptions: working together increases understanding through social constructivism and the expression of alternative viewpoints discussion of these alternative perspectives contributes to improved understanding metacognitive awareness of the value of collaboration will tend to lead to greater use of such learning opportunities and critical thinking skills participation and benefit will depend on how disposed students are to using a collaborative forum for learning. A series of 7 collaborative meetings were held and the latter 6 were tape recorded. These tapes were transcribed and listened to by both researchers. A summary of discussion was produced after each meeting and circulated to the collaborative research group. Emergent themes were discussed and refined and informed our responses to students and our plans for support. Throughout the period November 2003 to June 2004, the researchers met and reflected on the process and outcomes of the ongoing research. A journal recorded these reflections. We asked the students to complete a questionnaire about their experience of collaborative learning at the beginning and end of the research. We also asked them to rate a list of 57 features of collaborative work drawn from the literature (e.g. Udvari-Solner, 1994) on a scale from 5 (excellent) to 1 (poor). Although we also asked them to complete a learning style questionnaire, we only received 4 of these and so have not used them in our analyses. The process The first collaborative session set out the aims of our research project. We explained the academic task (to learn more about research skills) and goal structure for collaborative learning (participation, sharing knowledge and ideas, developing understanding of own views and others'), discussed their experience of collaboration and asked how they would like to work. We gave them copies of the ethics protocol and made it clear that they could withdraw from the research at any time. The students retained their right to individual tutorials. We agreed that we would send notes via email so that the group would remain informed of discussions when they were unable to attend. Our plans for the collaborative tutorials were as follows: Develop checklist of things to be done (whole group) (Week 2) Justify methods proposed for use - discussion from others about their decisions. (Week 3) Report back on problems, access. Pilot data collection instruments with each other prior to public use. Need for reflection and adaptation from the pilot stage. (Weeks 4-6) Students collecting data. Communicate via email, (Week 7 -8) Sharing findings and possible ways of analysis (input). (Week 9) Identifying themes, looking at different research methods contributions to knowledge of subjects, have expected advantages and disadvantages held up in own research and that of colleagues? Easter break - review what done and completing analysis. (Week 10) Discussion of drafts, conclusions (input). (Week 11- 12) meetings by arrangement Although we had sketched out this programme for how the sessions might work as part of the planning of our research, we wanted the students themselves to take responsibility for their learning. We asked them throughout the course what they wanted from the sessions and tried to respond to their stated and perceived needs. Subsequent sessions served to refine their research questions and included talk about literature reviews, analysis, assignments, and presentations. We also devised some tasks to try to support collaboration. Particular tasks undertaken included a 200-word summary of their research focus and data collection plans, on which others made constructive comments by email or within the session, regarding clarity and possible methodologies. We asked them to bring any pilots and interview/observation schedules. They were asked about their progress and different research concepts during sessions. A further task towards the end of the module required us to write our research questions followed by analysis plans during the session and these were then circulated around the group so that individuals contributed questions and suggestions. As part of our aim to re-distribute power relationships and increase their sense of responsibility for their learning (Bilics electronic source, p 9), we also took part in this. These activities did not happen in practice for all students because of practical difficulties or non-attendance. We made a point of relating comments to our own as well as students research as a way of modelling a collaborative approach and the research process. Analysis and findings Our analyses took both quantitative and qualitative forms. We recorded the nature and incidence of contacts with students in the collaborative group. We listened repeatedly to the taped sessions, read and re-read the transcripts, exploring singly and together the themes that emerged. We also used frameworks drawn from the literature (Norris & Ennis 1989 cited in Kong 2001; Reid et al 1989) to explore the prevalence of different forms of critical thinking dispositions and the collaborative process. We counted the number of tutor-student and student-student interactions and examined these exchanges in detail to investigate when and how collaboration and critical thinking operated in these contexts. Student contact Table 2 StudentCollaborative sessions attendedIndividual tutorialsEmailTotal contactsA421420B333743C562132D542736E431219F551222G252128 Hudson, Owen and van Veen (2003) used collaboration as a means of developing critical capacity in an on-line Masters level research module. They highlight the role of interdependence in developing collaborative learning (p 2) and point to the problem of critical mass to sustain learning communities (p 8). This resonates with our experience in a face to face context. We also experienced some difficulty in maintaining numbers at each session, particularly for maintaining continuity of contingent response to students needs. We found on average students had 29 contacts with tutors with a range between 19 and 43. The face to face contact varied between 6 (the number of meetings implicit in the number of tutor hours assigned) and 11. Tutor-student, student-student, tutor-tutor exchanges A quantitative analysis of the number of turns (Janssen, Krol & Veenman 2003) of more than 3 utterances by tutors or by students talking together has also been undertaken. This is a broad-brush indicator of how discourse was structured in the sessions. Table 3 Exchanges lasting more than 3 turns of tutor-tutor or student-studentNumber of exchanges tutor-student-same tutorInter-tutorInter-student T1T2Session 137812Session 261516Session 313181819Session 4N/A1310N/ASession 520413Session 66947(Note: only one tutor attended session 4) It would seem that on some occasions, we were not successful in getting inter-student collaboration. However, as we point out below, our intention was to be members of the group rather than tutors in a differential power relationship, in order to increase the critical thinking self-confidence of the students (Kong 2001). While this was our intention, we acknowledge that our collaborative interventions may have been perceived differently by students. Although it has not been possible at this stage to check some of our interpretations with students, this would be useful to do to check the validity of our assumptions. We did query their perception of our collaboration in Session 3. T1 we just feel terribly conscious that we end up probably dominating too much Bryony Oh I think we need it. We need a direction. I do (laughs) T1 Well the trouble is were saying the things that are you know, steering the discussion. What wed really like is for you to say. [] Wendy It just seems to me so supportive because you know, people I know who arent in a group like this are, as Ive said before, you know just floundering really, not really knowing where to go. Cos theyve got their tutors but theyre always conscious of taking up too much time or you know and the academic question, you know, whether they think they can go there, what they think might be silly questions or to talk to tutors with, stuff like that, yeah. But because were in the majority (laughs) we dont feel or I dont feel stupid Bonnie No, I do feel more, Im freer to ask questions and I dont feel so stupid asking in a smaller group T2 Thats good Bonnie Whereas I wouldnt have done it in a bigger group Bryony And one to one isnt always as easy Bonnie No Bryony Its all right up to a point but unless its raised and youve thought about it and you know, its come from you, because youve gone with what youre thinking but when youre in a group, other peoples thoughts are coming over, all sorts of thoughts are coming up and its broadening our horizons [] I think its given me the confidence, you know that first line, you know critical appraisal, to ask you what it meant, from your point of view. Do you know what I mean, because I wouldnt have done that normally so do you know what I mean, I feel a bit more confident that I can ask things. We also speculated about the different levels in tutor-student-same tutor exchanges, wondering if this might relate to certain qualitative differences we had observed in our responses to students questions and if this reflected our backgrounds from lecturing and research. In a closer analysis, we suggest that the exchanges between members of the group were supportive of collaboration and critical thinking. Collaborative interchanges Our intention was to collaborate with the group and to respond contingently to the level of understanding about research displayed in the sessions. We tried to model behaviour and attitude that were conducive to sharing and considering different views. In the transcripts, we believe that there is some evidence that we were collaborating with the students as fellow learners as we identified aspects of the research process, offered alternative views, suggested possibilities for research and problems, offered opinions and examples from our experience, asked questions and offered support. Identification of aspects of the research process T1 suggests that at this early stage it is good to ask why youre interested in the area you have chosen with the view that this will help to narrow the final focus: I think one of the things everyone has been through is to think about why youre interested in this [research] area and that will help you do that narrowing. T2 suggests that the student thinks about the observer effect that she might create and the need for her to go in to the school before hand so the children can get used to her: This sounds really interesting. I also wonder whether you have thought about getting access to the school and going in earlier so that the children get to know you a bit because if you go into the focus group with a tape recorder the first time its all really novel. T2 uses the example of Forest School to recommend searching for alternative viewpoints: Its like what we were talking about this morning, you can almost make an assumption that Forest Schools are generally good for children, to go outside and have outdoor experiences, but it would also be good to find something that is counter to that in some way to show that you have considered another point of view. For example, if people think [it may be] too risky. Offering alternative viewpoints T1 in response to a students view that she may not have known the children she was observing well enough: And the chance to comment as well Bryony on what you might do or another researcher might do in order to look to answer that other question that you would have quite liked to answer given endless time. T2 in response to a student asking what critical appraisal means: When you appraise something or evaluate something the temptation is to think [the authors] know what theyre talking about. But if youre being critical youre questioning it or thinking aboutthe contextthe validity. [Its important] not just to accept at face value everything that you read but to be thinking it through all the time. [For example], how is this true and how may it not be true in other cases? Suggesting possibilities for research and problems T1 in response to a student who says that transcription of words in interviews does not convey the body language or the feelings expressed: But you would, field notes are the things to do. You know, writing notes immediately afterwards and it stays fresh then cos you see, you come to do the transcript of the tape and it can sound quite foreign cant it, its not as you remember it. T2 in response to a students disappointment at the lack of organisation she perceived in the activities she was observing: I think its a relevant and valid thing to write about because organisational difficulties can actually impede learning. T2 in response to a student who is struggling with too many things to think about: Why dont you try writing all these floating things down and then they are out of your head which will give more space in your head and then [with your thoughts out there] you will be able to mover them around. Offering opinions and examples T1 in response to a student question on observing a target child: I thinkwhat youre going to get from the evaluation you do with Steve is much more of that global impression thing. But I think in terms of your own research it would be quite good to have in mind that youre going to look at certain children, one or two children in particular. Cos otherwise as you say youre so busy doing things that you just get some impression that can be dominated by those children who do make themselves felt and not then be a fair reflection of the experience of the whole group. T2 I think this is a difficult thing. [When we do research] no matter how hard you try not to you go in with preconceived ideas of what youre looking for. You have to wait and see what the data tells you. T2 So although putting it into a graph helps you to see it in a pictorial way you have to be careful not to make too many claims about 12 children. Asking questions T2 What stance are you taking to your research? What paradigm do you think you will be working within and why? T2 When youre doing your interpretivist study, what kind of data do you think that youll be collecting? Will it be quantitative or qualitative? T2 Yes I guess I was adding for clarification there. What is it you are trying to show? T2 Bryony, is the lack of backbone [in the research] you are referring to the fact that you are not actually trying to prove something or that you dont have evidence of the proof? T1 How are you identifying the services then Chris?...so the questionnaires, how will you decide what to put in them? So is it tailored for each service...Are you looking for differences in sectors...Did you find it helpful to try and think up the questions? Offered support T2 You realise that your audience has had the same input as you have on research methods so youre not having a completely ignorant audience about research. So they think you come with some shared meanings but bullying, youre probably the only person whos doing bullying. Your perspective, and the forest schools will be unique probably, the only person with parents with disability and remembering that youre the experts, its often hard to get your head around it. What the audience really appreciates is that youve taken the time to go and look at this particular subject and you do have expertise that none of us have, so do try and own that and realise that youve found a lot of knowledge, youve done the reading, gone out to the schools, youve done the questionnaires. However, there was also evidence of instructional teaching and explicit steering by the tutors. As well as dialogue and sharing of research ideas/problems, our collaborative sessions included the tutors explaining aspects of academic standards, e.g. referencing, use of appendices, the format of the research project, trying out exercises and tasks to encourage collaboration. This seemed to demonstrate that the students did not become independent overnight nor were the skills of contingent teaching and sensitive intervention fully established. Another viewpoint, with reference to the definitions of cooperation and collaboration (Panitz, electronic source) is that the students may have been developing their ability to collaborate on a continuum from cooperation to collaboration. There were times when the students clearly wanted us to conform to the view of a tutor as someone who holds the knowledge and tells them what to do. I am struggling. You are the teacher and I am not. You have obviously written [what your research is about] and know what it is and I dont really know what you are trying to do (from an exercise in which the tutors ask for feedback from the students) But surely you are the tutor and thats sensible isnt it? (Bryony) Analysis of student/tutor interactions also showed that there were instances when students were asking for specific instruction for research dilemmas. The only thing that he was concerned about was the letter to the parents and how I would word it so that I wouldnt be endangering their children as the children are only six. (Bonnie) and other instances when there was evidence of students sharing thoughts and experiences, problem solving, thinking in a critical way and appearing to gain confidence. I was worried about what perspective to take on bullying and it took me ages to decide what I was going to look at. First I considered the parents perspective and I was going to look at it from the schools perspective and then the government, then the child and the teachers. But in the end I decided that I would probably interview the children because a lot of the books Ive read have spoken about how children have defined bullying differently to the adults. I though I would ask a couple of questions about bullying and what they think could be done to tackle it in schools. I feel the need to keep it positive because its a very sensitive subject. I dont want to scare them. Im a bit worried that the teacher will choose a group [of children] that will be biased on some way. I would like to be able to choose the children myself. (Jackie) Of course the analysis itself is open to interpretation and will by necessity reflect our perspectives. It may be that a students analysis would have produced very different results. Indications of Disposition to Critical thinking Norris and Ennis (1989 cited in Kong 2001, p4) conceptions of critical thinking dispositions were used as a framework for examining the examples of critical thinking in the sessions. The full breakdown of categories is given on p 4 of this paper. The following table illustrates the relative incidence of different types of critical thinking. Table 4 Valid and comprehensive informationPrecision and focusAlternative perspectivesCritical appraisal of their own and others viewsSession 1 (n=140)24 (17%)38 (27%)23 (16%)7 (0.05%)Session 2 (n=118)18 (15%)15 (13%)18 (15%)16 (11%)Session 3 (n=196)24 (12%)43 (22%)24 (12%)20 (10%)Session4 (n=100)13 (13%)16 (16%)18 (18%)16 (16%)Session 5 (n=77)13 (17%)17 (22%)18 (23%)9 (12%)Session6 (n=71)7 (10%)19 (27%)6 (8%)7 (10%) N.B. Rounded percentages shown are of all coded statements (n). Other coded statements not reported here included reassurance, telling or describing, opinions, following instruction, seeking help and practical difficulties. In session 1, when the students are trying to develop a research question, keeping their thinking to the main point, looking for alternatives and using credible sources are the most common. When the students are writing their assignments, seeking as much precision as the subject permits and dealing in an orderly manner with the parts of a complex whole, become important. Critical appraisal starts at a very low level and peaks in session 4 when they seek alternatives and reasons, but remains mostly at a level of about 10% of the statements made. It may be that this reflects an initial awkwardness about making critical comments until a supportive atmosphere is developed (Griffin 2003). The sensitivity and tact of some of the interventions by students to other student thinking is marked; see, for example, Wendys questioning of Bryony below. The following sections exemplify the categories. Some statements may have been assigned more than one code. Valid and comprehensive information Wendy queries Bryonys research question and the basis for her hypotheses. Bryony I was going to draw on my own experience. Wendy Youd have to back that up with research. Bryony Some of my reading has been around that. Exercising muscles and minds is good for principles of any planning what Im trying to find out. Wendy I was just a bit worried that you had already made conclusions. I get all confused about these hypotheses. [] T1 If you have really strong views, I think you should get it out there and own up to it. Wendy Youre already thinking about it. I had to look at with mine, hang on, am I going into this to prove it? Jackie recognises a danger of leading children in interviews and the impact of context. Im trying to not lead them in the discussion just stay really with the focus group but its really hard trying to keep their attention. Especially, we were actually in the head teachers office so they were really excited about being in the office so they were looking around at everything on the window sill the photos around but it was fun. Precision and focus The tutors in early sessions often stress the need for clarity about the focus of the students research. The students concern about precision centres more on issues of evidence. Wendy in session 4 struggles with the idea of not getting definitive answers. But I am still conscious of no hard data. I like this Its still going to be a lot based on my impressions because they dont say do they, like adults, oh when I did this, I really felt this that and the other. The very fact that they are talking about it is significant I think. Bryony reflects on her research evidence and how she would have liked more baseline data with which to compare her impressions. I found this very difficult to get my head around for the simple reason that we didnt know the children beforehand so we have no record of where they are coming from, we just had them in our face as it were blanks. So I didnt know where our starting ground was so that I found it very difficult and the other thing is we did not have them for long enough. Yes I obviously got my data which I collected as a diary and the feedback we have from a group but what am I putting the bench mark against? In session 5, both tutors make points about the need to handle the data to make it accessible to their audience. T1 You think at first I havent got enough and almost always you find youve got a huge amount and its actually trying to think of how can I organise it, tidy it up, make it lessmake it easier for somebody who hasnt actually lived through that experience to understand when theyre reading it. So its things like structures, which as you say theories might help but even if there is an existing theory, people still need to think about organising things; what are features of self esteem for instance? Alternative perspectives In session 1 Wendy proposes an alternative research design to Bonnie and explains the reasons why this might be beneficial. Wendy it just crossed my mind about sometimes if you have an active child and pair that with a quiet passive child it benefits both so it might be a good idea, done separately and then identify ones that might pair together quite well and work with them both together and see I dont know what youre thinking but Bonnie I could do that at the end. I dont want the middle divide, I dont want to always [] Wendy Its sort of to do with modelling, Im thinking of nursery age children but I mean you know you get the ones that always take the you can sort of model it a bit but you need another passive one to model it with, if all the active ones are together... But still thats just a thought that crossed my mind cos theres that type thing. Bonnie appears to consider the idea but wants to keep with her original concept of two separate groups. She does not seem to rationalise her decision. In session 4, Chris takes on board some of the comments made on her summary by Bryony and gives reasons for her actions. I was just reading what Bryony wrote; why dont you just contain it into this area instead of countrywide. Because what I am doing is parents with learning difficulties, services that are available for them and how. There have been loads of studies on it and how these services should be doing it for parents with learning difficulties, and so I was going to look at how they were doing it in reality. But Im sending out a questionnaire, and where it says why are you doing it countrywide rather than Exmouth, its because there are so few services. If it was just here in Exmouth, you wouldnt get a picture of whats going on really. Theres only Surestart. Theres Homestart in Exeter and the Learning Disability Team, so Id only get 3 questionnaires so Ive got to do it to London, Nottingham, Scotland! She also shows she appreciates the need to get information from different sources. Critical appraisal of their own and others views Bryony describes the process of arriving at her research topic. Cos I was going to do other peoples views on parents focus groups but I did speak to [a tutor] about that and she said Id get too much stereotypical stuff going on. Cos I watched a programme that was on during the summer and it was called unfit parenting and it was a whole hour of these parents but the documentary showed all the bad things that they were doing and like everyone thinks its going to be really bad and no-one looks at the positive aspects of it so thats why Im interested in it really. She shows awareness of possible bias and looks for balance in her research. Wendy also demonstrates awareness of potential bias in Session 2 as she decides, the only thing which I didnt do, which Ill do now when I start again, is I sort of really focused on the positive, you know, what did we find and we looked at everything and I just didnt ask the question was there anything you found difficult about forest school? So I thought Im just going to add that one in. She exhibits critical thinking in her consideration of the problems of interviewing children. Theres a big question over interviews with children and whether they can be valid so you have to find other ways to valididate - that word! I can write it but not talk it! - so thats why I thought the individual interview and then perhaps the group interview and the drawings as well and reflects about a possible Hawthorne effect of her own enthusiasm for forest school, Because I wondered if because they know me and I was in forest school with them and now they see me in the school they say is it forest school.no just come to see your project. And whether they will, they knew I enjoyed it whether they will say they enjoyed it because they want to please me so that really makes it difficult. These examples illustrate how students may have been at different levels of criticality (Barnett 1997 cited in Johnston et al. 2003) but sensitively supported each other in raising critical issues and encouraged reasoning and appraisal of views (Griffin 2003). This may have aided other students critical thinking development (Vygotsky 1978) through their joint construction of alternative ideas. These are our interpretations of the students learning experience; their views of the learning experience follow in the next section. Evaluations of learning experience by students The students were asked to fill out a questionnaire in which they commented on their attitudes and experience of collaboration both at the beginning and the end of the project. Although everyone was generally positive about experiences of working together at the beginning of the project, by the end they were more enthusiastic and were able to pick out specific instances where it had benefited them as individuals. The main benefits were seen to be learning from each others experiences and views. Students also derived satisfaction from being able to help one another. Collaboration helped to support them when things went wrong and diffused feelings of isolation. One student also said that meeting together regularly motivated her to achieve deadlines. The disadvantages that were noted were that, if the topic being discussed did not relate directly to their personal research, it could feel like they were wasting their time. It could also feel as though they were taking on additional worries or concerns and some found they didnt want to share or were inhibited in trying to do so. Students found it challenging to read and comment on someone elses work as they did not feel qualified. Finding a mutually agreeable time could also present problems and if people missed sessions, it could be frustrating for others. Students said that the way they ideally liked to work consisted of a combination of working alone but also having the opportunity to bounce ideas around or clarify their thinking with others. One student summed up how things had changed for her over the semester: The first meeting made me very weary of collaborative groups, but as it progressed and became more general, i.e. talking about methods, I found it very helpful and it proved, in the end, to be a good style of tutoring. Students rated 57 ways of collaborating, taken from examples by Udvari-Solner (1994 p63), as they perceived them to operate in our sessions. The most highly rated concerned issues of sharing, clarification and focus, communication and support (see Table 5 below). Other items on the list included creativity, conflict resolution, leadership and critical thinking, which were less highly rated as operating in the context of our sessions. Table 5 Sharing Sharing ideasDiscussing a common task/different approachesSharing materialsClarification and focusArticulating your intentionsClarifying ideasAsking questionsSummarisingStaying on taskCommunicationExplaining your plansParticipating in group or paired discussionsListening to othersActive listeningTurn takingSupportActing in trusting and trustworthy waysMaintaining low anxiety and stressAccepting and supporting each otherExpressing feelingsEncouraging members to participateUsing humour to enhance group cohesivenessExpressing support and acceptance towards ideasExpressing warmth and empathy towards group membersStaying with the groupAsking for help This emphasis on affective issues relates to ideas that, without a supportive atmosphere, students will be unable to engage in either collaboration (Johnson & Johnson 1989 cited in Thousand et al 1994) or critical thinking (Convery 2001). Conflict and leadership were not expected to be issues because of the way the group was set up; we had made it clear that we expected supportive constructive dialogue and that we wanted to work with them collaboratively rather than identify a leader for sessions. The lower rating for critical thinking may have been due to this not being made explicit and also due to a misunderstanding about the meaning of critical. In one session, Bryony had asked what critical appraisal meant. Bryony Yeah, if you critically appraise, surely thats two different things youre doing? No? Could you explain that a bit more? Tutor Critical isnt necessarily a negative thing. Bryony No? Tutor Its looking in a very careful measured way. Bryony And what does appraise mean? Tutor And appraise means weighing up. So its saying the same thing in a way, weighing up the value of something. So rather than just reporting, I think the thing with the literature review, whats quite tempting to do sometimes is you do the reading and find things that are relevant and you report them. But what in a literature review you should be doing, its not a literature report, its a review, so youve got to actually think about whats being said in the literature and do that process of weighing up its value in terms of what youre going to be researching. This illustrates how we have to be careful about our use of language, especially as widening access means that not all students have been acculturated through A levels (McKendree et al 2002, Bruffee 2001). Another potential explanation of low levels of criticality may be instrumental attitudes to learning, whereby students do not see purpose in engaging in learning which is not directly assessed. Jackie illustrates the pressure of instrumental demands in Session 2. T1 So you two have you finished yours [literature review and methodology review directed tasks with formative feedback] as well? J Yes I handed mine in yesterday T1 How did it feel? Were you satisfied? J Yes I was a bit worried. Oh yes because they werent getting marked, I was worried I was spending too long on them and I was getting close to the adults and stuff, so it was time wasting. This is echoed in Session 3 by Bryonys remarks on the task to summarise ones own research and then comment on anothers summary. I couldnt afford the time to do it but I did do it. I was thinking...at the time I was thinking Oh no, not something else to do. So when I actually wrote it down and got it done I thought Yeah, you know cos the questions are What do you want to find out, What am I hoping to find out, how am I going to plan to find out the above, which I thought was quite good for me putting it in a logical way. And I was looking forward to my feedback um and then when receiving this [someone elses summary] I thought Oh no, I cant pick this one to pieces and so I panicked about that a bit. But when I sat down and sort of answered the three questions, um I you know, I was hoping that that would be helpful for Chris as well. So I thought, yes it was a positive thing more than a negative thing. Their comments illustrate the tension between course requirements of students and the status of learning opportunities which are not assessed (Entwistle & Entwistle 1991 cited in de la Harpe & Radloff, electronic source, p6). Collaborative Research Journal From the beginning of the project we kept a journal with impressions and reflections from the collaboration that took place in the sessions and any follow up discussion. In these oral and written spaces we were able to capture insights on how the students were responding to us, each other and the content of the sessions, which informed how we organised subsequent sessions. In the journal we noted that the students were grateful for the structure that we offered them in the beginning; a theme that we considered throughout was the balance between the structure that we offered and a more exploratory approach towards working together. With too much structure it seemed possible that the students might become somewhat dependent and too relaxed about what they needed to do. It became apparent that it can be quite easy to assume that students have a certain level of academic skill and that collaboration can bring to the surface gaps and misunderstandings of, for example, the meanings of key terms. We noted the need to be aware of the group processes in developing trust where students are able to bring up their real concerns in the sessions. We were aware that there is not only a development of a group feeling but also a development in the ability to share ideas and consider others viewpoints. In the early stages we reflected that we were moving towards collaboration but our responses and planning reflect a more contingent approach in trying to scaffold the learning of and engagement in research skills. In later sessions we felt that the students were demonstrating indications of independence and ownership towards their research and a more marked ability to collaborate. Our reflections on what we were attempting to do helped us to realise that the flexible thinking needed in research is difficult to convey when lecturing to students about research skills. A lecture which outlines procedures or theory cannot give students a true reflection of the real-life messiness they may find when they undertake their own research. Even if a lecturer details the difficulties in their own research this may be viewed by the students as part of successful research rather than possible obstacles that they will have to find their own solutions to. It seems that a practical start to the research, e.g. working in an early years setting may help to ground the decisions that are made in relation to the requirements and complications of the research. In a similar way that things dont always go to plan in a nursery, someone doing research may need to salvage situations and regroup to either take advantage of the moment or find new ways to get what is needed. When the students got involved in schools and with the children their motivation increased which may have helped them to find out more about their research interest and the research skills that they needed. Conclusion The anticipated requirements for a graduate in the 21st century include the ability to work with other people who may hold different opinions and to engage in critical interchange in order to be effective participants in their communities and workplaces (DfEE 1998b). Our findings supported the belief that collaboration offers an appropriate way to foster interdependence, achievement and good relationships (Johnson & Johnson 1989 cited in Thousand et al 1994). Students emphasised the supportive nature of this way of learning. Furthermore, we found many instances of scaffolding of critical thinking by both students and tutors in this context. However, we also found that long standing expectations of tutor-student relationships and deep seated teaching practices may require a longer period to effect change. Collaborative work and critical thinking need to be embedded within assessment practices for them to be fully valued and embraced by both staff and students (Johnston et al 2003). To create an environment where collaboration and critical thinking can be supported, we need to find ways of working with students that recognise and promote three aspects of change: an attitude of experimentation, a common goal and personal support (Smith, Johnson & Johnson 1992 cited in Thousand et al 1994). The collaborative tutorial appears to offer a context for all three. References Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (1998) Assessment by portfolio: constructing learning and designing teaching. Pp 443-462 In P. Stimpson & P. Morris (Eds.) Curriculum Assessment for Hong Kong: Two components, one system. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press Bilics (electronic source, undated) The web of collaboration: a tool for understanding the zone of proximal development in adult learners, available online  HYPERLINK "http://liber.rsuh.ru/Conf/Notes_Psyh/andrea.html Accessed 11.5.04" http://liber.rsuh.ru/Conf/Notes_Psyh/andrea.html Accessed 11.5.04 Bruffee, K. (1999) Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence and the authority of knowledge (2nd edition), London: the Johns Hopkins University Press. Chrislip, D. and Larson, C. (1994) Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Convery, A. (2001) A teachers response to reflection-in-action in Soler, J., Craft, A. & Burgess, H. (Ed) (2001) Teacher development exploring our practice, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. DfEE (1998a) The Learning Age, The Stationery Office, available online  HYPERLINK "http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaper" http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaper. DfEE (1998b) Higher Education for the 21st Century, The Stationery Office, available online,  HYPERLINK "http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/dearing/" http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/dearing/. De la Harpe, B. & Radloff, A. (electronic source, undated) Do first year students reflect on their learning? Why they should and how they can, available online  HYPERLINK "http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDA/HTML/TchLearn/delaHarpe.HTM [Accessed 11.5.04" http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDA/HTML/TchLearn/delaHarpe.HTM [Accessed 11.5.04] Fisher, K. (2003) Demystifying Critical reflection: Defining criteria for assessment, Higher Education Research and Development, 22, (3), pp 313-325 Forman, E. and Cazden, C. (1985) Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: the cognitive value of peer interaction in J. Wertsch (Ed), Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives, Cambridge: CUP. Griffin, M. L. (2003) Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in preservice teachers, Reflective Practice, 4 (2), pp 207-220 Hudson, B., Owen, D. & van Veen, K. (2003) Working on educational research methods with Masters students in an international online learning community, paper presented at EERA Network 6 Open Learning Contexts, Cultural Diversity, Democracy (OPENnet), European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003 Janssen, J., Krol, K. & Veenman, S. (2003) Student Elaboration in Cooperative Learning, paper presented at European Association for research in Learning and Instruction, 26-30 August 2003, Padova, Italy Johnston, B. Mitchell, R. Ford, P. & Myles, F.J. (2003) Critical thinking: Undergraduates and Social Practices. Paper presented at Society for Research in Higher Education conference, December 2003. available online  HYPERLINK "http://www.critical.soton.ac.uk" http://www.critical.soton.ac.uk [Accessed 26.5.04] Komives, S. (1999) The changing Nature of Work in Higher Education (ONLINE)  HYPERLINK "http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorsscholars/trends/trends6.htm" http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorsscholars/trends/trends6.htm [Accessed 03-06-04]. Kong, S.L. (2001) Critical Thinking Dispositions of Pre-service Teachers in Singapore: A Preliminary Investigation, available online  HYPERLINK "http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/kon01173.htm" http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/kon01173.htm [accessed 11.5.04] McKendree, J., Small, C., Stenning, K. & Conlon, T. (2002) The Role of Representation in Teaching and Learning Critical Thinking, Educational Review, 54 (1) pp 57-67 Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education (1997) Higher education in the Learning Society, The Dearing Report, London: NCIHE, available online  HYPERLINK "http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/nchihe/" http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/nchihe/ Panitz, T. (electronic source, undated) Collaborative versus co-operative learning a comparison of the two concepts which will help us to understand the underlying nature of interactive learning, available online  HYPERLINK http://homecapecod.net?~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefintion.htm http://homecapecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm Accessed 11.5.04 Pithers, R.T. & Soden, R. (2000) Critical thinking in education: a review, Educational Research, 42 (3), pp237-249. Reid, J., Forrestal, P. and Cook, J. (1989) Small Group Learning in the Classroom, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Soden, R. & MacLellan, E. (2000) What might count as evidence of critical thinking in teacher education courses? Paper presented at the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme, First Annual Conference, University of Leicester, November 2000, available online  HYPERLINK "http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003286.htm" http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003286.htm [accessed 11.5.04] Tang, C (1996) Collaborative learning: the latent dimension in Chinese students Learning In ed. D.A. Watkins & J.B.Biggs The Chinese learner: Cultural, Psychological and contextual Influences (no page numbers available) available online  HYPERLINK "http://www.hku.hk/cerc/Publications/Chinese_Learner.htm" http://www.hku.hk/cerc/Publications/Chinese_Learner.htm [accessed 11.5.04] Tharp, R. and Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, learning and schooling in social context, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Thousand, J., Villa, R. and Nevin, A. (1994) Creativity and Collaborative Learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers, Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co. Udvari-Solner, A. (1994) A Decision- Making Model for Curricular Adaptations in cooperative groups pp59-77 in J. Thousand, R. Villa, and A. Nevin, (Eds.) (1994), Creativity and Collaborative Learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers, Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co. University of Plymouth (2002) Learning and Teaching Strategy, available online  HYPERLINK "http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/files/extranet/docs/TLD/ltstrategy.pdf" http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/files/extranet/docs/TLD/ltstrategy.pdf Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, London: Harvard University Press. Wood, D. (1988) How Children Think and Learn, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.  Forest schools take place in woodland spaces over a period of weeks and are intended to develop self esteem and enjoyment and understanding of the environment. Paper for IASCE conference 21- 25 June 2004 Please do not cite without the permission of the authors PAGE 1 PAGE 26 M t ~ C D E x  6]a :P/7 T !?#@###$$ % %l%m%2&W&X&'' hB|WCJ hJCJh*h0hB|WhovhxVhJ5 hJH*hxVhLV( h&5hJ hJ5LMNi~   :;YZeTU ! !"A# & F ^ ^`$a$"A##$%o%1&2&W&X&))*+C++:,,,-e/05060 $Ifgd=bgdq6 & F  & F '''''P)Q)u))))))))),n-w--....d/e////////000034@4A4B4C4445R5S555A6J6U6W6777778!888 99;;Ŀ hJH* *hJ5 hB|W5 hov5 hJ5h&h&mH sH h&h= h=h=hq6h>%hovhJ h>%CJ hovCJ hJCJB607080P0 $Ifgd=bqkd$$Ifl0  604 laP0Q0R0x0 $Ifgd=btkd$$Ifl40 ` 604 laf4x0y0z00 $Ifgd=btkd/$$Ifl40  604 laf40000 $Ifgd=btkd$$Ifl40  604 laf40000 $Ifgd=bqkdi$$Ifl0  604 la0000 $Ifgd=btkd$$Ifl40 ` 604 laf4000#1 $Ifgd=btkd$$Ifl40  604 laf4#1$1%1U1 $Ifgd=btkd5$$Ifl40  604 laf4U1V1W11 $Ifgd=btkd$$Ifl40  604 laf41111 $Ifgd=btkdo$$Ifl40  604 laf41111 $Ifgd=bskd $$Ifl40  604 la111 2 $Ifgd=bqkd$$Ifl0  604 la 2 2 2X2 $Ifgd=btkd8$$Ifl40 ` 604 laf4X2Y2Z22 $Ifgd=btkd$$Ifl40  604 laf4222+3 $Ifgd=btkdr$$Ifl40  604 laf4+3,3_3`3 $Ifgd=btkd $$Ifl40  604 laf4`3a3b3o3 $Ifgd=bqkd $$Ifl0  604 lao3p3q33 $Ifgd=btkd> $$Ifl40 ` 604 laf43333 $Ifgd=btkd $$Ifl40  604 laf433B4C455R5S581<3<????|$a$gd&tkdx $$Ifl40  604 laf4;<<<<<<?? @@%B4B5BHHMNN:OSOOOPPP[Q]QQQhSSWWXXXXGY_YlYmYYYYYYZZ[\>\J\a\\C^D^P^BbFbsbzb eeeeeef̶h=bh=jhB;0JU hB;hJ hJH*hB; h&5 hJ5hF h>%hJh>% h&h&h#(0hovhB|WhJD? @@BBAIBIKALMMNNPPPPS^Y_YlYmYC^D^P^Q^!aa & F^gd&$a$aa{bbbffffiiiYjkEkkRllll-s.sDsEs v vvvgd& & F & Fff*f+f4f5f;fDǠ h3%6hq6hk6hkhVvhGhvlhOh* h&h&h&h&h&mH sH h` hhJh hJ6 h&5 hJ5hJh=bh=v%v-vMvbvhvwvxvzvJkd $$IflrQ N h t04 la 8$Ifzv|v~vvvvvvvLkd $$IflrQ N h t04 la 8$IfvvvvvvvvvLkd $$IflrQ N h t04 la 8$IfvvvvvvvVLLLLL 8$Ifkd$$IflrQ N h t04 lavvvvvvvVLLLLL 8$Ifkd}$$IflrQ N h t04 lavvvvvvvVLLLLL 8$IfkdW$$IflrQ N h t04 lavvvvvvvVLLLLL 8$Ifkd1$$IflrQ N h t04 lavvvyyyzzVLFF@>> 8 8 8^kd $$IflrQ N h t04 lazzz@{m{n{o{{{{{akd$$Ifl4FT `,\ 0    4 laf4  9r $If $$Ifa$ {{{{+kd$$Ifl4rT p..04 laf4p2 $$Ifa$gdG{{{{{{ $$Ifa$gdG $$Ifa${{{{{7... $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4rT p..04 laf4p2{{{{+kd$$Ifl4rT p..04 laf4p2 $$Ifa$gdG{{{{{{ $$Ifa$gdG $$Ifa${{{{{7... $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4rT p..04 laf4p2{{{{+kd$$Ifl4rT p..04 laf4p2 $$Ifa$gdG{{{{{{ $$Ifa$gdG $$Ifa${{| | | |7.... $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl4rT p..04 laf4p2 |||:|;|.,,kd$$Ifl4rT p..04 laf4p2 $$Ifa$;|~~>$قhi|}"#vgd`k0]^`0gd W]gdq60]^`0gdq6]gdk0]^`0gdkDEF TU$*ق߂ @ADEGhi{|}!"#wKǻh h`k5^J h`k^J h&5^J h`k5^JhF;h`k5^Jha=Whq6hJ6hhJhP:hq6hFh W h3%6 h&6 hq66hq6hq66 h W6hq6hk66vwSTۏ܏ !‘^gd^gd`kgd`kKQT  9ڏۏ܏!"‘ axzՓ걧ʕەۅh\h`k^J h6^Jh]h`k^JhB?h`k^Jhqh6^J h`k6^Jh!h^Jh!h`k^J h`k5^JhGh`k5^J h^Jh$>h`k^Jhqh`k6^J h`k^J hB|W^J4yzqrŔɘʘ^_pquvϚК^gd`kgd`k6CpĔŔǘȘɘʘϘ^qvyϚКҚӚԚܚԛ՛"%OR9:;Ǿ׭׭ h6hh6hqh`k5^J hB|W6^JhqhB|W6^J h`k5^Jh]h`k^Jh\h`k6^J h^J h`k^Jhqh6^J h6^J h`k6^Jhqh`k6^J8КâĢYZ45ݪުgd&^gdgd`k^gd`k;<pxyFGquXYqr֠*DEZ5sݪު׾׾׾ױרhXymH sH hVmH sH h&h&mH sH hJhF;h`k^J h,^J h`k6^Jhqh`k6^Jhqh`k^J h^J h`k^JhxDh6 h6hh6hh6 h65 =@gīūǫث8@جܬ!"*+3?OPXYabjuĭŭͭέխ CDGHнحhOmmH sH hB|WmH sH hQmH sH h&hZmH sH h&mH sH hZmH sH hFmH sH hVmH sH hXymH sH h/mH sH Bު89ABfzŬ $Ifgdq6gdq6ŬƬجNEEEEE $Ifgdq6kd$$IflrF a  t0644 la"+4NEEEEEE $Ifgdq6kd($$IflrF a  t0644 la45?GPYbkNEEEEEE $Ifgdq6kd$$IflrF a  t0644 laklu}NEEEEEE $Ifgdq6kd0$$IflrF a  t0644 laŭέ֭NEEEEEE $Ifgdq6kd$$IflrF a  t0644 la֭׭NEEEEEE $Ifgdq6kd8$$IflrF a  t0644 laIJDEزNIIIIIIGgdq6kd$$IflrF a  t0644 laHIJͮbpΰϰ԰ܰ<GV^hpEtvwx|ײزٲ иииииии谥} hh}= hhlL h&5 hk;5hk;hk;5hk;hq65hq6h`kmH sH h/mH sH hEEmH sH hC!mH sH h3%mH sH h-mH sH hB|WmH sH hZmH sH h`kmH sH hOmH sH hq6mH sH 1زٲ$%VX  շ#$ACùĹgdxD^gd^gd[1gd p`^p``gd3%`gd #$%,V]ghӳ457Xwx EF  CVa뺲ʣџh}= h[15 h#(05 hk;5hk;hk;5hk;hq65h[1h[16 h[1h[1h[1hhhB|W6 hB|W6 h6hh6 h3%6hk;h&>Էշ"#$@ABCùĹ jk"),)+,/¼ļżǼҼӼuvýĽ&'()*BCDi¾ɾ⿷ h&5 hk;5hk;hk;5h}=h3% h3%6h[1h[16 h[16 hxD6hxDhxD6hxD h&6hh6h&hk;h hh h[1h[1h[19Ĺ+,(*CD¾Y]KIJ^gdlL |^`|gdk; ^`gdk;gdk;^gd[1gd[1^gdxDɾ ?XY\]b57[]JKHIJ|}GHghû鴬ڤڜh!yJh&6 h!yJ6h!yJh!yJ6h!yJhJhk;hk;5 hlLhlLhlLh&6 hlL6hlLhlL6 h3%6 h}=6h& hlLhk;h3%hlL h&6 hk;6hihk;68J|}YZlmEF$a$gdxD H^`gdo^gdo^gdxD H^`gd!yJ<IYZz{cfsu jlm56qt;@LDku~hFhEEhMRh-hJ h(9L6hoh&6 ho6hoho6hxDh&6 h!yJ6 hh6 h3%6hhhh6h&hhhOhoh3%h!yJ=67)*z{EFfg!"#,14JV{#*8DE_RɿۥhlLh}mh&hK/hha=WhihTX^JhJhB|W6^J h&6^JhJhTX6^J h&^J hEE^J h3%^J hTX^Jh&h&mH sH h#(0hJh-hEEhMR7EF"#$If^gdTXgdTXgd&$a$ ~~$Ifzkd@$$Ifl09  t0644 la0}}$If|kd$$Ifl409 ` t0644 la012D}}$If|kd$$Ifl409  t0644 laDE]^}}$If|kdC$$Ifl409  t0644 la^_`}~~$Ifzkd$$Ifl09  t0644 la}~}}$If|kd$$Ifl409 ` t0644 la}}$If|kdF $$Ifl409  t0644 la}}$If|kd $$Ifl409  t0644 la}}$If|kd $$Ifl409  t0644 la}}$If|kdQ!$$Ifl409  t0644 la~~$Ifzkd!$$Ifl09  t0644 la}}$If|kd!$$Ifl409 ` t0644 la0}}$If|kdT"$$Ifl409  t0644 la012C}}$If|kd"$$Ifl409  t0644 laCDEQ}}$If|kd#$$Ifl409  t0644 laQRZ[}}$If|kd_#$$Ifl409  t0644 la[\]~~$Ifzkd#$$Ifl09  t0644 laR\&'cycu{(\befg$CDEgh49:줠ؘhMRhMR6 hMR6 hEE6hhhk;6hMRhk; h9dh9dh}mh6 h&6 hi6 h6 h}m6h}mh}m6 h3%6h#(0h3%hh*hEEh9dh&h}mhJha=W4}}$If|kd $$$Ifl409 ` t0644 la}}$If|kdb$$$Ifl409  t0644 la}}$If|kd$$$Ifl409  t0644 la }}$If|kd%$$Ifl409  t0644 la 8}}$If|kdm%$$Ifl409  t0644 la89:j}}$If|kd%$$Ifl409  t0644 lajkl}}$If|kd&$$Ifl409  t0644 la}}$If|kdx&$$Ifl409  t0644 la}}$If|kd&$$Ifl409  t0644 la)\gtttttttogd9d p`^p``gd}m|kd*'$$Ifl409  t0644 la Wx_`yzXY[fggd*^gdk;gdk;:LMUVQ]_`(*,WXY[efgԿԸ}x hhw5 hJ5h#s.hJ5h}mh*hbh*^JhX[zh*^J h*^Jh h*5^JhB d hhhk;hMR h&6h&hlLh3%hk;hhh&6 hk;6hhhB|W6hhhk;6 hEE6 hMR6,gefprt 57Zc8NOQRihyz ŽٰhqRhZ0Jj'hZU hVEhZjhZUhohZhoz h(9L5h(9Lh(9L5hJhhwh(9L5h(9LhB|Wh#s. hhw5 h*h*h*hhwh(9LhhwH* h(9Lhhw6FG |}[\IJgdogd2gdZgdoz "}(G+UV !-WYZ[)*+7ѭwjhoUhoj)*hZU hQhZhB|W hB|W6 h#s.6h#s.hZ6H*h#s.hZ6hqRhZ0Jj)hZUh#s.h#s.6h#s.h#s.h26h2hVEhZ6H*hVEhZ6hZjhZU-7hj| I\JFMN>?Uj*+AB  * +  ՝Ւե~jo/hoUhqRhZ0Jj .hZUjhZUhtthh ho0Jj-hoU hgJhoh2hNv"hZ6 ho5hZh&ho0JjhoUjJ+hoUho hoho0TUAB@ A   h i _ `   K L   STlm#$Rgd#(0gdozgdZgdo      B h i       6 7 8 ] ^ ` l  & 6 7 8      x     ʾʶʫΞΖ΋}yuqh2h qh{ hNv"hZ6 hZ0Jj1hZUjhZUhw]hqRh#s.0Jj0h#s.Ujh#s.UhB|Wh#s.h#s.6h#s.hZh?8hZ6]^Jh?8hZ^JhozhgJho>*hohoho5)  >?RSTap1ABCCk$*17<>?ԵԨztnthn h#(0^J h q^J h2^Jh qh2^JhH"hZ6^J hZ^Jh?8hZ6]^Jh?8hZ^JhZhhoz0JjU4hozUjhozUhw]hoz6hB|Whoz hhoh ho0Jj 3hoUhojhoU(?%RS56M̲§̝̔̄vrncrYjhC/X0JUheyhC/XCJaJh,hC/XjhC/X0JUhJhZh?8hZ6]^Jh?8hZ^JhH"hZ6^JhqRhZ0J^Jj5hqRhZU^JjhZU^J hZ^JhH"h#(06^Jh#(0h#(0^J h#(0^J h2^Jhh^J h^J!RS89 !"#h]h&`#$gdZgdZ !"#hJh,h,0JmHnHuhC/XhC/X0JmHnHujhC/X0JU hC/X0J. A!"#$%$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l05 564$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l05 564$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l05 564$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l05 564$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5 56#v #v6:V l40+5 564f4$$If!vh5555h5#v#v#v#vh#v:V l t05555h54$$If!vh5555h5#v#v#v#vh#v:V l t05555h54$$If!vh5555h5#v#v#v#vh#v:V l t05555h54$$If!vh5555h5#v#v#v#vh#v:V l t05555h54$$If!vh5555h5#v#v#v#vh#v:V l t05555h54$$If!vh5555h5#v#v#v#vh#v:V l t05555h54$$If!vh5555h5#v#v#v#vh#v:V l t05555h54$$If!vh5555h5#v#v#v#vh#v:V l t05555h54$$If!vh55,5\ #v#v,#v\ :V l40+55,5\ 4f4$$If!vh55p55.5.#v#vp#v#v.:V l40+55p55.4f4p2$$If!vh55p55.5.#v#vp#v#v.:V l4055p55.4f4p2$$If!vh55p55.5.#v#vp#v#v.:V l4055p55.4f4p2$$If!vh55p55.5.#v#vp#v#v.:V l4055p55.4f4p2$$If!vh55p55.5.#v#vp#v#v.:V l4055p55.4f4p2$$If!vh55p55.5.#v#vp#v#v.:V l4055p55.4f4p2$$If!vh55p55.5.#v#vp#v#v.:V l4055p55.4f4p2$$If!vh5~545~55}#v~#v4#v~#v#v}:Vl t655$$If!vh5~545~55}#v~#v4#v~#v#v}:Vl t655$$If!vh5~545~55}#v~#v4#v~#v#v}:Vl t655$$If!vh5~545~55}#v~#v4#v~#v#v}:Vl t655$$If!vh5~545~55}#v~#v4#v~#v#v}:Vl t655$$If!vh5~545~55}#v~#v4#v~#v#v}:Vl t655$$If!vh5~545~55}#v~#v4#v~#v#v}:Vl t655O$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5O$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5O$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5O$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5W$$If!vh55#v:Vl4 t6+5}DyK Bhttp://liber.rsuh.ru/Conf/Notes_Psyh/andrea.html Accessed 11.5.04yK http://liber.rsuh.ru/Conf/Notes_Psyh/andrea.html Accessed 11.5.04)DyK -http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaperyK Zhttp://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaper!DyK +http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/dearing/yK Vhttp://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/dearing/DyK Uhttp://www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDA/HTML/TchLearn/delaHarpe.HTM [Accessed 11.5.04yK http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDA/HTML/TchLearn/delaHarpe.HTM [Accessed 11.5.04DyK  http://www.critical.soton.ac.ukyK Bhttp://www.critical.soton.ac.uk/eDyK <http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorsscholars/trends/trends6.htmyK xhttp://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorsscholars/trends/trends6.htmDyK *http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/kon01173.htmyK Thttp://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/kon01173.htm DyK &http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/nchihe/yK Lhttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/nchihe/sDyK ?http://homecapecod.net?~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefintion.htmyK http://homecapecod.net/?~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefintion.htmIDyK 5http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003286.htmyK jhttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003286.htmUDyK 8http://www.hku.hk/cerc/Publications/Chinese_Learner.htmyK phttp://www.hku.hk/cerc/Publications/Chinese_Learner.htmyDyK Ahttp://www.plymouth.ac.uk/files/extranet/docs/TLD/ltstrategy.pdfyK http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/files/extranet/docs/TLD/ltstrategy.pdfD@D NormalCJOJQJ_HmH sH tH >@> Heading 1$$@&a$5F@F Heading 2$@&5\^JaJtH 8@8 Heading 3$@&6DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 2B@2 Body TextCJLC@L Body Text Indent<^<`0U@0 Hyperlink>*B*@V@!@ FollowedHyperlink>*B* 4@24 Header  9r 4 @B4 Footer  9r .)@Q. Page Numberj@cj a=W Table Grid7:V0HrH G Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ:@: TX Footnote TextCJ@&@@ TXFootnote ReferenceH*Q##MNi~:;Y Z e TU  Ao12WX!!"#C##:$$$%e'(5(6(7(8(P(Q(R(x(y(z(((((((((((((#)$)%)U)V)W)))))))))) * * *X*Y*Z****++,+_+`+a+b+o+p+q++++++B,C,--R-S-014347777 88::AABACADEEFFHHHHK^Q_QlQmQCVDVPVQV!YYY{ZZZ^^^^aaaYbcEccRdddd-k.kDkEk n nnn%n-nMnbnhnwnxnzn|n~nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnqqqrrrr@smsnsos{sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst t t ttt:t;tvv>wwx$zzzz{{h}i}|~}~"#vwSTۇ܇ !‰yzqrŌɐʐ^_pquvϒВÚĚYZ45ݢޢ89ABfzŤƤؤ"+45?GPYbklu}ťΥ֥ץIJDEت٪$%VX  կ#$ACñı+,(*CD¶Y]KĺźIJ|}YZlmEFEF"#012DE]^_`}~012CDEQRZ[\] 89:jkl)\gWx_`yzXY[fgFG |}[\IJTUAB@Ahi_`KLSTl m # $ R S 8 9         !$0000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000-00S-0S-0S-0S-00S-p0S-0070707070707070707070707@07070707H070707070707070707 07 07 07 07070707070707(07 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a0a0a070+k0+k0+k0+k0+k0+k0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k 0+k0+k0+k070q0q0q0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0qx0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q0q00q0700000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000p007000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000p0000000000p000000000000@0p@0@0p@0@0p@0000000p000p0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007p@0p0TIL@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00ԧL++++msssssssssssss ttSTXIS$O9008 X4Oy00 O9008 hZOy00  Oy008 tnOy00 Oy000Oy00 LOy00hOy00 LOy00Oy00 LOy00Oy00 LOy0 0Oy00 LOy0 0HOy00 LOy0 0Oy00xOy00Oy00F6&FgOy00Oy00F6&FgOy00Oy00Oy00Oy00Oy00O9008 tn0YWcOy008 nOy00My00@0Oy0 0Oy0 0Oy0 0Oy0 00#wfs';fDK;H ɾR:g 7 ?#A#60P0x00000#1U1111 2X22+3`3o333?avzvvvvvvvz{{{{{{{{{ |;|vКުŬ4k֭زĹJ0D^}0CQ[ 8jR#"y U Z*>**7]7 >B  5 #XXXXXXXXXXXXfmosz}!!8@0(  B S  ? _Hlt74814963$$ELL x$xT iu5#x\w|}iܨz1$1#$UD;Tl䥽$'Lһ\u 4J l%x"L%< {@ zl v$xL#DQ|| "|"L#lu$E)z4'+|Ԧ\GW<ڻyN\~~!!GGGIHIHWH̄̄ӄuu׽׽߽߽22**KK\\6E E    S S a       $      !"#$%&'()*+,-./021354678:9;=<>?@ABCDWh!!GGGSH_H_H҄لل{{ݽݽ;;77TTcc>N N    ] i i       $   !"#$%&'()*+,-./021354678:9;=<>?@ABCD9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStateB?*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9C*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=A*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNameVE*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonNamehttp://www.microsoft.com8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate 20042536DayMonthYearEECBAC?CBAC:CBACBACBBC:C:C:?C:CCC:C:C:C:C:C:C?C:C:CBAC:C:CBAC:C:C  !$  !$3337Td'd'77OOPPqq}}}}gs{kuyXep5i*+``1 5 7 < f q   R   }         $  !$ Sue Waite Sue Waitesjwaite Sue Waite Sue Waite Sue Waite Sue Waite Sue Waite Sue Waite Sue Waite\ pm} _!  ? 2t0rD{ |&h) y=#D X@ mBԎtX0F">FNس~&X  dY YWc hftW0Sz   ^ `o(. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH88^8`o() hh^h`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHhXX^X`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh((^(`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`56.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH hh^h`o(.mB&h)rD{ _! D X@~&XYWcm}Sz2FNy=hfX0F? dYLK&GEEC!LV(*,#s.K/#(0B;=}=xD!yJ(9LMR Wa=WB|WC/XZw]=bB d9dtthvl}mOm qVvhw~{ TX>%iov+&Xy-oz{xVey:`3%2QFJ[1k;$fohG0OVk/lLP:q6o`k!e'(5(6(7(8(P(Q(R(x(y(z(((((((((((((#)$)%)U)V)W)))))))))) * * *X*Y*Z****++,+_+`+a+b+o+p+q++++++%n-nMnbnhnwnxnzn|n~nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnrrr@smsnsos{ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst t t tttABfzŤƤؤ"+45GPYbkl}ťΥ֥ץ;012DE]^_`}~012CDEQRZ[\] 89:jkl^ !$S09hu:a0a0@P#`@UnknownG: Times New Roman5Symbol3& : Arial5& zaTahoma?5 : Courier New;Wingdings"qhLf+&ϋ Hc(c(!24dZZ=3qH(?{LTeaching and Learning Research Skills through Collaboration: The way forwardsjwaitesjwaiteP            Oh+'0 ,@ P\ x   MTeaching and Learning Research Skills through Collaboration: The way forwardgeacsjwaitejwajwa Normal.dotdsjwaite12aMicrosoft Word 10.0@1-@ʆyuT@\S@bc(՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  )University of PlymouthZ{ MTeaching and Learning Research Skills through Collaboration: The way forward Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAH!Ahttp://www.plymouth.ac.uk/files/extranet/docs/TLD/ltstrategy.pdf!G8http://www.hku.hk/cerc/Publications/Chinese_Learner.htm 5http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003286.htm*g@http://homecapecod.net/?~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefintion.htmCJ&http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/nchihe/@@*http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/kon01173.htm!r<http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorsscholars/trends/trends6.htm !http://www.critical.soton.ac.uk/B` Uhttp://www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDA/HTML/TchLearn/delaHarpe.HTM [Accessed 11.5.04`c+http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/dearing/P-http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaperS1Bhttp://liber.rsuh.ru/Conf/Notes_Psyh/andrea.html Accessed 11.5.04  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlmnopqrtuvwxyzRoot Entry Fp@ӕbData #71Table WordDocumentSummaryInformation(kDocumentSummaryInformation8sCompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F0{e Data #71Table WordDocument      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlmnopqr  !"#$%&'()*+le@dl _PID_HLINKS_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayNameAH!Ahttp://www.plymouth.ac.uk/files/extranet/docs/TLD/ltstrategy.pdf!G8http://www.hku.hk/cerc/Publications/Chinese_Learner.htm 5http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003286.htm*g@http://homecapecod.net/?~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefintion.htmCJ&http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/nchihe/@@*http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/kon01173.htm!r<http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorsscholars/trends/trends6.htm !http://www.critical.soton.ac.uk/B` Uhttp://www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDA/HTML/TchLearn/delaHarpe.HTM [Accessed 11.5.04`c+http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/dearing/P-http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaperS1Bhttp://liber.rsuh.ru/Conf/Notes_Psyh/andrea.html Accessed 11.5.04 p iasce 2004S.J.Waite@plymouth.ac.uk Sue WaiteSummaryInformation(kDocumentSummaryInformation8p CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  )University of PlymouthZ{ MTeaching and Learning Research Skills through Collaboration: The way forward Tit