I have done quite a bit of research on the use of linked concept mapping and outline tools for supporting writing (in various genres, including research reporting), and I have become a staunch supporter of them at all levels - in primary schools, secondary schools and higher education. I regularly use these (e.g. Inspiration) with graduate students working on final assignments. They are most helpful for the literature review and writing the conceptual framework, but might have some applications in thinking through ways to chunk/present data.

This week, i learned about a new, open access tool: Docear. I haven’t tried this yet, but did mention it to a few of my MSc students as potentially helpful. This seems to take the integrated concept mapping and outline tools to higher level. Here is their promotional video: http://youtu.be/yDAfcSHxjbM

In my past role as Head of  graduate programmes offered online at my university, we designed a system to assist both students and their supervisors to manage the research process both in terms of allocation of time as well as the tasks to be done at various phases of the exercise. We therefore structured the Learning Management system (Moodle) to accommodate opportunity for both synchronous and asynchronous interaction between a supervisor and his/her group of students to address specific aspects of the research undertaking at particular points. So for example, the schedule required a one-on-one meeting to discuss a previously submitted draft of the research problem (or research questions etc. )to be followed up by written feedback from supervisor to student.

An important part of the whole exercise was the research seminar, held before and after the data collection exercise, during which individual students would present to their group (and any others who cared to drop by), and be questioned by their peers and staff about their work. This exercise would culminate in a report to the student, using a standardised template, in which the supervisor summarised the comments provided by himself/herself and the other 2 evaluators (i.e. fellow supervisors).

All of the above was supported by manuals - for both students and supervisors - that were prepared by the in-house staff of the Graduate Programmes Department. Essentially, the aim was to develop and implement a system that provided continuous support, maximum opportunity for interaction, informed feedback, and the highest level of accountability possible.

Please explain Mode 2 research.

I refer to mode 2 as being research not specifically aimed to produce fundamental theoretical  knowledge but rather aimed to solve the problems teachers face as practitioners. (although this doesn't mean that this mode 2 research is not able to produce forms of fundamental theoretical insights)  When mode 1 is compared to mode 2 , mode 1 research would choose experimental random controlled trail designs to check if method A is better than method B, and mode 2 research might use design based research to develop interventions that will offer a solution to the problem or choose a descriptive design first to get the problem clearer.

So, Harry by ypur answer given to Georgette is the latest virson of one uses the scientific model and the other is just "descritive" because it uses hermeneutics?

Douglas

Nice Contribution Harry Stokhof