Chatting over coffee a while back with one of our staff development people and a top notch academic fellow, the conversation turned to “the lecture” and “what was it about?”. I’d been in the land of HE for 18 months and went away puzzled – “they’ve been at it for a couple of hundred years – have they not worked it out yet?”
Now one third of the way through H800 (hurrah!) I am confronted by the complete woolliness of it all. Last week I was ponderig how it is much like slicing an orange. We have this thing called teaching and learning and different people suggest (convincingly or otherwise) that it should be sliced, analysed and considered in different ways.
Perspective 1: You peel the orange and divide it into 4 quadrants each with 3 segments.
Perspenctive 2: No, its much better to slice it longitudinally, so you have a top, with a lot of skin, and two thick bits in the middle.
This week John Richardson writes “if you have a background in the physical sciences this may seem rather strange”. Too right John! I clutch my software engineering degree and A levels in Maths, Physics and Chemistry and attain a bemused look.
So take blogging – we are offered a way of dividing blogging behaviours into 4, then 5 different categories – is one right and the other wrong, are are they both incomplete? If the objective of the course is to apply large pinches of salt to all that is published then I am now there. And where there is such diversity of orange chopping behavour does peer review really have any useful moderating/ consensus driving behaviour?
My friend I am visiting this weekend is trained in the delights of MBTI – (Meyers Briggs Type Indicator). A helpful, yet somethimes constricting technique of putting people into one of 16 boxes. So back to blogging…I’m sure there must be a piece of “research” that could find more blogging behaviours that would “neatly” match to MBTI personality types.
Of course there are a few types that would be much less inclined to blog!