The term “integrated learning”
October 17, 2008 § Leave a comment
was problematic for Gaalen. I used the term but was not clear about what it meant. Well, that doesn’t surprise me, as that was an edit that came in on the last day before I submitted my proposal. I had spent weeks figuring out what “efficacious learning” meant, and then I had to remove it and replace it with integrated learning. I’m getting this part of it sorted out. I can relate this aspect of research design to my artwork. When I make a drawing or a painting, I have a myriad of resources that I can use to make that image. In the process of creating it, I have to select what image I am going to work on – portrait, pears, traffic, etc. I have to select what method I am going to use – contour, implied line, gesture, shade, etc. I have to select what materials I am going to use – graphite, oil pastel, crayones, pencil crayons, paint, ink, opaque or translucent colours, etc. I bring these all together and make a try at creating a piece – evidence of my activity in the studio. Research is no different, and I can take this forward. Instead of citing so many different authors from many different fields, I can choose three to use as a centre from which associated texts can be linked. For instance, I would like to work with Thompson, phenomenology, and Slack. That would be plenty to read and write about, and use as a way to analyse the data from Seeds. One mistake I have been consistantly making is throwing too many different elements at the research. It is as if I have been using oil pastels and watercolors and acrylic paint all in one piece. After a certain point, things just get down right messy. That is all there is to it. For example, writing my way through my notes in this way is very helpful to synthesize the comments and take my work forward.