Posts Tagged ‘Discussions’

  • Results

    Date: 2009.10.26 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 0

    Reflection
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 9
    Date: 26 October 2009

    I have finally got my results back for my first two university assignments. It is difficult to hide my disappointment. I know I shouldn’t be disappointed with my results because they are my first ones and they are good ones, but that doesn’t change the fact that I am disappointed, no matter how irrational.

    I got a Distinction for my Learning Log, which I of course is an excellent result, especially for my first submission, and I am very happy with that result, but I made a silly mistake. My mistake was that I had listed the main points of my reading reviews. Koral had stated that she did not want to see lists (admittedly I thought that was in reference to the essays, but to be truthful I don’t believe I was thinking at all). The fact of the matter is I didn’t do what I was told and it is irritating when you know you could have done better. On the bright side, I’ll be sure to present the main points in prose for the next one.

    My other result was my essay. This one was really disappointing for me. I got a Credit, and again, I shouldn’t be disappointed with that result, especially as it was my first essay at university level, because I think Koral was kind to me, and it is as good result. I am learning after all. I guess I’m not disappointed at the result. My real disappointment lay in the actual output that I delivered. While I was waiting for the essay to get marked, I pored over it several times. I knew in myself that it wasn’t a good one. I felt the argument was weak, I wasn’t sure I’d even answered the question and the conclusion was too short and awkward. I found Koral’s comments helpful, but they demonstrated the gap I need to bridge in order to produce an acceptable essay. I believe my thesis needs to be clearer, I have to work on my structure (including my paragraph lengths) and Koral confirmed my atrocious conclusion. That’s not mentioning the silly faux pas I made. :-S

    This entry is seeming a little negative, but as I reflect on the last week it is not surprising. Week 8 has been a particularly low week for me. Besides my irrational reaction to my results, I’ve also been contemplating my participation in the online tutorials. I believe my posting in the tutorials has become a tool for procrastination preventing me from completing my Learning Skills exercises. Also, this might be an overactive self-analysis, but I have read over my posts and I’m afraid that I might be more of a hindrance than a help. I’m beginning to wonder if my posts might be prohibitive to other students making their own contributions. What is more disturbing is that I feel that the posts might come across as authoritative and condescending. I especially got this sense after reading my post on the Grant reading. For now I think I should just dial it back a bit.

    Finally, I find myself in a quandary over my future studies. I had come into this unit with the intention of doing a Bachelor of Business Studies, mainly for vocational reasons, but that isn’t what I really want to be doing. I’m two thirds of the way through this unit and I’m really starting to believe I should be doing something else. For many years now, in my spare time I have studied the sort of content that we have been studying for SSK12. Philosophy has been a considerable part of my life for at least the last five years and now I’m wondering if I should be studying this in a formal capacity. I have spoken to a few people about this dilemma I find myself in, probably too many people, and consequently I feel like I am being pull from pillar to post. Everyone has an opinion, and of course that’s the reason I ask them in the first place. This is already sounding silly. My sister is trying to convince me I should be doing something I am interested in, while my colleagues are telling me I should consider carefully what is beneficial to my career. To be truthful, neither of those responses surprise me. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that I have so many interests. So there’s philosophy, psychology, linguistics and language (particularly semitic languages, but French and Hindi make an appearance too), and of course Israel and all things Hebrew. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. With so many interests where do I go?

  • Directive verbs and their associated structure

    Date: 2009.10.21 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 0

    Reflection
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 8
    Date: 21 October 2009

    Koral provides some explanation regarding essay structure according to the directive verbs found in the topic question:

    Ok thanks for the reminder, at this point in the edsay process I like to post some stuff from a colleague at Murdoch, Ian Cook:

    Ian Cook tells us that there are four basic types of directive words to be found in essay questions and, therefore, four basic essay structures. Each structure then will have a slightly different plan style. (Essay questions will also contain ‘content words’, i.e. what concepts or ideas the essay is about.)

    Sometimes there will be more than one directive word in a question however.
    In this case, the essay will need to be organised into section in which each of the directive words is used as the basis for the structure of that section.

    The types of question are as follows:
    1) ‘is/can/does’ type of questions
    2) ‘explain/outline/why/account for’
    3) ‘discuss/critically assess/critically evaluate’
    4) ‘to what extent’ type of questions..

    (“How” is a difficult one as it could be “How does X relate to Y?” or it could be “How important is X?”)

    These do not exhaust the possibilities with respect to directive words and are intended to illustrate the general principle.
    Answering a question or responding to a topic with one type of directive word is entirely different from answering a question or responding to a topic with another type of directive word.
    Identifying the directive word that governs a question or topic means that we can identify the basic structure (what I refer to as a “block plan”) of the essay that would answer the question or respond effectively to the topic. The basic structures that match the types of directive words are indicated by the following:

    1) yes case-no case-my case or no case-yes case-my case
    2) list
    3) model & analysis
    4) continuum

    OK. I will post further on these structure soon.
    What have you got there in relation to these models?
    K.

  • Grant (1997)

    Date: 2009.10.20 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 1

    Reflection (Do not use for the Learning Log)
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 7 (in Week 8.)
    Date: 20 October 2009

    Grant’s essay Disciplining Students: the construction of student subjectivities is one of ambiguities. I quite enjoyed it, if not purely for the skilful use of these two words that Koral has called out, which bear double meanings, then definitely for the extensive referencing of Michel Foucault. I’ve always been fascinated by Foucault, his understanding of power and how it forms our understanding of self.

    Hobbsy gives a fine definition of ‘discipline’ in her post. I don’t believe I need to add anything to it other than to mention that Grant refers to the double meaning of discipline herself, when she writes, “In the concept ‘discipline’, there is yet another interesting ambiguity in that it both refers to the distinct forms of knowledge as we conceive them and to the action of bringing about obedience”.

    The other word Grant uses that is loaded with ambiguity is of course, subject. The philosophical sense of subject according to The Australian Oxford Dictionary is one of “a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego…” as well as the one that is poignant to Grant’s paper; “a person owing obedience to another”, by which she means a student who is subject to the authority of the university.

    At the risk of being the class prat, I would like to suggest that –ivity is actually the combination of two suffixes: -ive and –ity. As Hobbsy points out, the suffix –ive forms adjectives expressing meanings of “tending to, or having the nature of”, for example, subject becomes subjective and therefore shifts from being “a thinking or feeling entity” to (in a philosophical sense) something “proceeding from or belonging to the individual consciousness”. While the suffix –ity forms nouns “denoting: …quality or condition”. Subjective becomes subjectivity, and again, its meaning shifts from the one stated above to “a condition of being subjective”. This might seem like semantics (well actually it is ;)), but I believe that it is important to make the distinction in order to answer Hobbsy’s question.

    Hobbsy asks, “Why didn’t Grant just use subject?” It’s an excellent question because it also helps us understand Foucault’s worldview. My answer is: although the two words are nouns they are in fact different and therefore bear different meanings. Within the context of this paper, subject means “a thinking or felling entity” (i.e. the student) that is also subjected to, “the technologies of domination, which originate in the [university], and those of the self”. On the other hand, subjectivity means “a condition of being subjective”. I’d rather put it like this: subjectivity is the perception a subject has of the world. Foucault proposes that subjectivity is a product of power. Grant, using references to Foucault, wants to illustrate that the students’ perception of themselves is formed by their subjectedness to the power relations found in the university. This I believe is the construction of student subjectivities.

  • Avruch (2002)

    Date: 2009.10.17 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 0

    Reflection (Do not use for the Learning Log)
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 7
    Date: 17 October 2009

    Patrick shows us that the “inadequate ideas of culture” over simplify culture and disconnect culture from the very individuals that perpetuate its existence. I believe in one sentence Patrick beautifully captures the problem the inadequate ideas present, but you know me (or at least you’re learning, somewhat painfully), I don’t do one sentence. 🙂 May I take the liberty of expanding upon this nugget of truth (if there is even such a thing ;))?

    I believe Avruch is saying that the “inadequate ideas” individually or collectively, limit the diversity of culture(s), restrict the sense of cultural change, and/or confine culture merely to a set of national/ethnic customs.

    If we used all or most of the 6 “inadequate ideas” to form our understanding of culture, I believe we would find that it would be this monolithic thing (almost existing independent of humankind), everyone in a national or ethnic people group would have the same one, and that it would be unchanging and timeless. That might have worked for Tylor, but it is, as the words suggest, inadequate for Avruch.

    Dallas points out that Avruch says, “Using [the inadequate ideas of culture], we argue, greatly diminishes the utility of the culture concept as an analytical tool for understanding social action…” You might ask, “How so?” I suggest this is the key to Avruch’s argument. I would like to contextualise the context again. The title of the book is Culture and Conflict Resolution. Immediately we get a sense that we’re not just talking about culture, but rather Avruch’s understanding and desired use for understanding culture are put in context. That it’s about how culture affect peoples’ behaviour and their thinking, and how understanding peoples’ culture might help in conflict resolution, both on a grand scale or something as small as a discussion between two people or even the differences of opinion in our own tutorial group.

    Not just the book name, but also Avruch’s name raised questions for me. Avruch is a Jewish name, and so for me at least, this further contextualised the book and chapter. I wondered if he is Jewish then might the Middle East conflict and the Herculean task of finding a resolution there be at the forefront of his thinking. I did a little research and sure enough, Avruch might be considered an expert in Hebrew religious and secular culture, Israeli society, politics and government. He has written extensively in this field, so it would seem the Middle East is at the forefront of his mind. Being Jewish doesn’t invalidate his opinions of the situation; he is actually quite critical of Israel. As are many Jews, one reading of Ha’aretz Daily newspaper will show you that.

    Going back to the concept of culture with all of the above in mind we should get a better understanding of why the 6 “inadequate ideas”, the first and second definitions (at the very least) of culture, and especially the concept of “Culture as custom” are of little value to the analysis and assistance toward the resolution of conflict, big or small. These ideas and definitions inadequately address the complexity of varied and plural cultures, they don’t account for cultures’ fluidity and dynamism, and if culture is this reified thing, then it doesn’t allow for human individuality.

    In relation to Koral’s second question, I am a firm believer in the plurality of culture in the individual. I belong to a western culture; an Australian culture; I’m heavily influenced by British and American culture; I am saturated in popular culture through the mass media (how many of us have related something we saw or said back to The Simpsons?); I have a team culture at work that promotes professionalism, dressing smartly (i.e. suit and tie), going the extra mile attitude and always being prepared to help your fellow soldier in the trenches.

    I’m not sure I like to think of all of the above being influences for a conglomerated individual culture. I think they are distinct and separate. Whether they can stand on their own or they are interdependent, and especially dependent upon western culture is for another discussion. Perhaps this is why the term sub-culture is a good one. My workplace is an interesting illustration of this. I have worked for St.George Bank for many years and St.George has a well-entrenched and distinct culture, it’s a good one, a friendly one. For many years I have acted and thought according to the culture promoted. Since December of last year St.George Bank has been a part of The Westpac Group and Westpac has a very different culture, in many respects these cultures are in conflict. I have had to learn to think and act in a certain way for my colleagues in Westpac, while continuing to think and act the St.George way for my St.George colleagues. They have not blended for me; I participate separately in the collective cultures of each institution. Is this what Penny Oakes was referring to? Finally, I like Avruch’s example that “A person possesses and controls several cultures in the same way, as sociolinguists tell us, that even a so-called monolingual speaker controls different “registers” of the same language or dialect”. This is self-evident when you observe the way you talk and behave differently from the work or professional context to the familiar or social context.

  • Bizzell (1986)

    Date: 2009.10.14 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 0

    Reflection (Do not use for the Learning Log)
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 7
    Date: 14 October 2009

    Patricia Bizzell (1986, 294) hypothesises that “basic writers” are the least well prepared for entering tertiary study. She continues by breaking down her reasons for believing this, and it is not just because their writing is not academically suitable, but as Jen pointed out, they may not necessarily think academically (or even be able to think academically).

    Bizzell’s reference to “basic writers” is not regarding speakers of other languages, but rather Bizzell is referring to speakers and therefore writers of non-Standard English and dialects distinct from Standard English.

    Perhaps, a definition of Standard English will help us understand Bizzell’s initial premise. Standard English is itself a dialect of English just like non-standard English, and the many manifestations thereof, found in the various local and regional English dialects. Formal writing and the Standard dialect of English have a recognised convention for vocabulary, grammar and spelling. There are some excellent explanations regarding the subject of Standard English at the following address: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/standard.htm. Richard Hudson’s paper in particular provides a very straightforward understanding. His table of Standard and non-Standard sentence structures is very helpful for understanding what Bizzell is referring to. Hudson (2000) uses examples such as “I did it” and “I done it”, or “Come quickly!” and “Come quick!” (Note: In both cases the first example is Standard English).

    Local and regional dialects can and do differ from the standard both in their vernacular and their grammatical structure. Dallas mentioned African-Americans in his post. I think this is an excellent example and no doubt pertinent to Bizzell’s thinking. Bizzell is writing from an American perspective. Of course Bizzell’s argument is not exclusive to African-Americans, this would also affect school leavers who communicate in the Southern dialect or elements of the Hispanic community or as stated above, any non-standard English dialect. Why I like the African-American example is because we’ve all been exposed to it in popular culture. We’re exposed to it on television, at the cinema, while listening to Hip-Hop and so on.

    Bizzell (294) is very quick to dispel the misconception that non-Standard dialects are incapable of conveying complex thought. Steven Pinker (2008, 29) informs us the dialect of English spoken by a significant number of African-Americans is called Black English Vernacular (BEV). Pinker illustrates the difference between BEV and Standard American English (SAE) when he compares “Don’t nobody know” (BEV) and “Doesn’t anybody know?” (SAE), but Pinker is also quick to point out that non-Standard dialects are as equally complex as the Standard when he explains that in some cases BEV is more precise than Standard English. This is demonstrated by his BEV example, “He be working means that he generally works…[and] He working means only that he is working at the moment that the sentence is uttered. In SAE, He is working fails to make that distinction” (30).

    We should bear in mind that Bizzell’s hypothesis is not limited to the college freshers in the United States. Each and every one of us in this tutorial group uses the Australian English dialect, which can be further broken down to regional variations, each with its own vocabulary, I’m sure we’ve all heard “I done it” being used. Many Australians exhibit non-Standard features, such as double negatives, incorrect word tense usage, and colloquialisms like “uni” instead of “university”, which add an element of familiarity that may not be appropriate for academic writing. Furthermore, Koral’s posts’ regarding grammar shows that we are not immune to the pitfalls of “basic writing”.

    Bizzell doesn’t just simply stop at basic writing, she moves through a series of conclusions that arrives at basic writers thinking a certain way. That the basic writers’ way of thinking as dictated by their dialectical framework is incompatible with the academic dialectical framework for thinking.

    At this point I get a sense that Bizzell is writing from a postmodern worldview perspective. I believe this because her claim that different dialects and discourse conventions equals different thinking suggests a structuralist, or semiotician understanding. That is to say, the basic writers’ understanding of culture and the world is through the construct of language. Bizzell’s (298-301) extensive references to William Perry further suggest this to me, especially as Perry asserts his relativistic view of the world (i.e. no “Absolutes”).

    If this is so, then it makes sense as to why Bizzell believes that the basic writer may not be able to think academically. If one’s worldview is constructed upon and understood through one’s dialect and if the basic writer is unable to discern Standard English (the preferred dialect for education), then the academic worldview; the worldview understood through Standard English will be foreign also. Perry’s understanding is to the degree that he believes the basic writers’ worldview and the academic worldview would be in conflict.

    Ultimately, Bizzell suggests that the basic writer will be more acutely aware that the requirements of tertiary education are different from any previously held notions due to the bigger immediate hurdle of overcoming the linguistic differences. Those linguistic or dialectical differences represent a greater distance between their home worldview and the academic worldview and consequently, the basic writer may feel that the academic worldview threatens their own, but because of the pre-eminent position Standard English has in academia and the workplace they may have a more accepting recognition for change.

    References:
    Bizzell, Patricia. 1986. What happens when basic writers come to college? College Composition and Communication. 37(3): 294-301.

    Hudson, Richard. 2000. The Language Teacher and descriptive versus prescriptive norms: The educational context. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/SEhudson.htm
    (accessed October 13th, 2009)

    Pinker, Steven. 2008. The Language Instinct: The new Science of Language and Mind (Popular Penguins Edition). Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin Group (Australia).

  • Worldviews II

    Date: 2009.09.23 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 0

    Reflection
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 4
    Date: 23 September 2009

    I wrote the attached file in response to some discussion regarding worldviews, but decided not to post it thinking that it might seem pretentious. Besides it was a bit late to add anything of value to the discussion.

    Worldview

  • Worldviews

    Date: 2009.09.15 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 1

    Reflection (Do not use for the Learning Log)
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 2 (in Week 3)
    Date: 15 September 2009

    Like a few here I am lagging a little, I’ve only just listened to the Week2 lecture given by Julia Hobson (2007) in the last two days. During the second part of the lecture Hobson makes a distinction between her understanding of a worldview and what she refers to as personal belief systems. I don’t completely agree with Hobson’s definition of a worldview in this respect. I find this definition limited. I understand that the university lecturer may need to be careful not to stray too far into spirituality so as not to cross from philosophy into religious education, but my belief (as framed by my worldview) is that these two concepts are inseparable. I believe what Hobson defines as personal belief systems are a fundamental and integral part of one’s worldview.

    As a side note, this is an important illustration of the necessity to contextualise the context or read/listen worldviewishly, for as Sire (2004, 121) says, “the very concept of a worldview is itself worldview dependent.” Each proponent of a given worldview will have their own understanding of what a worldview is. Clearly mine is different to Hobson’s.

    James Sire is one of my favourite authors, author of such books as The Universe Next Door and Naming the Elephant. His definition of a worldview is my favourite, it is concise yet comprehensive, and I doubt I could define it any better. Sire (2004, 122) writes:

    “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”

    For me the key to unlocking the concept of worldviews is the word presupposition. The foundation of any worldview is its presuppositions. So believing in a God, believing in many gods or not believing in god at all is fundamental to one’s worldview and by extension, one’s understanding of the self.

    When Nietzsche (1882, 125) writes, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” This is a massive shift from previously held notions. Even those of a modern thinker such as John Locke who believed in “our ‘Inalienable Rights’, which are ordained by God.” (Osborne, 2007, 89) This is further demonstrated in that the Kamikaze pilot’s sense of self is very different to that of the Secular humanist’s, or that of a Jain, who values all life.

    I think we can say with some confidence that today’s Christian worldview is a modern one, as I’m sure the Western Sunni Muslim worldview or the Reformed Jewish one is. I would go as far to say that many Christians worldwide manifest a syncretism between Christianity and postmodernism. My point is that there is a Modern Christian worldview, as much as there was a Mediæval Christian worldview, which are both distinct from secular modernism and each one will see the world and the concept of self differently through different lenses of understanding.

    In my case, I am not a Christian, but I cannot deny the influence of Christianity on the Western worldview and mine in particular.

    In conclusion, it is my belief that peoples’ belief systems have played a major role in philosophy throughout history, Christianity in particular plays a significant role in the evolution of western philosophy. I know Hobson doesn’t limit the definition of worldviews to Greek, Mediæval, Modern or mechanistic and Postmodern, but I think it is important to point out that there are many worldviews, held by many people and they are multifaceted. I hope I have satisfactorily argued a case for the inseparability of personal belief systems (as defined by Hobson) and one’s worldview.

    References
    Hobson, J. 2007. Lecture: Concepts of the Self. Audio Recording. Murdoch: Murdoch University. 06 August 2007.

    Sire, James W. 2004. Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept. Downers Grove, U.S.A.: InterVarsity Press.

    Nietzsche, F. 1882. “The Madman”, The Gay Science 125, in The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufmann, 1954. New York: Viking. Reprinted in The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. 4th ed. p. 211. Downers Grove, U.S.A.: InterVarsity Press.

    Osborne, R. 2007. Philosophy: For Beginners. New Delhi: Orient Longman.

  • Meta-

    Date: 2009.09.07 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 0

    Reflection
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 1
    Date: 07 September 2009

    Lorraine Marshall references the text in the Unit Reader as follows:
    Hobson, J. 1996. Concepts of the self: Different ways of knowing about the self. SSK12 lecture transcript. ed. Marshall, L. Perth: Murdoch University

    At the risk of looking silly, I’m wondering if the following full reference is also valid, if not more so:
    Hobson, J. 1996. Concepts of the self: Different ways of knowing about the self. SSK12 lecture transcript. ed. Marshall, L. Reprinted in SSK12 Introduction to University Learning Reader 2008, 27-36. Perth: Murdoch University

    When did we find the lovely word ‘metacognition’ and where is the Glossary thread? Have I missed something?

    The Oxford Dictionary of English (2005) defines ‘meta-‘ a combining form (or prefix) 1. denoting a change of position or condition: metamorphosis, 2. denoting position behind, after, or beyond: metacarpus, 3. denoting something of a higher or second-order kind: metalanguage.

    Upon cross-referencing ‘metalanguage’ from the definition above you find it is “a form of language or set of terms used for the description or analysis of another language” (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2005) and if you were to look up ‘metacognition’ you would find that it is an “awareness and understanding of one’s own thought processes” (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2005).

    In both these cases (and many others pertaining to philosophy and psychology) when we apply the prefix ‘Meta-‘ to the original subject or word stem, the new word represents a subject or topic about the original subject. In other words, metalanguage is a language used to describe language and metacognition is thinking about thinking or in Hobson’s (1996) case, “contextualis[ing] the context”.

    In summary, to answer Koral’s question, in this case I believe ‘meta’ to mean something above and beyond the subject we are applying it to in order to better understand that subject. (I hope that made sense) 🙂

    More on the context that defines me and the questions that may raise after I’ve actually read the text. 🙂

    References
    “meta- combining form” The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Murdoch University. 6 September 2009 <http://0-www.oxfordreference.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e47936>

    “metalanguage noun” The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Murdoch University. 6 September 2009 <http://0-www.oxfordreference.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e47953>

    “metacognition noun” The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Murdoch University. 6 September 2009 <http://0-www.oxfordreference.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e47945>

  • My brain hurts

    Date: 2009.09.05 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 0

    Reflection
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 1
    Date: 05 September 2009

    It’s Saturday and I’ve been studying all day. Slowly the course work is coming together, but I still feel well behind. I am catching up on some of the discussions in the Online tutorial.

    I have completed the LITE assessment and I have found the LITE lessons quite informative. I can see that the items I am learning during the lessons are going to be a huge help in the future when I am trying to track down some information for an assignment. I can see that despite the fact that I am already quite savvy at searching, there are items I have learnt that will make my searches even in the work place far more efficient. I was a little disappointed that I got 4 out of 5 in two of the Module Quizzes, but in reality it’s not that bad, as long as I learn from the lessons. The overall percentage in relation to my final results is quite low so as not to affect them too much. I guess it’s just the perfectionist in me and my desire to do the best I can. Sometimes it is frustrating knowing you could have done better.

    I only just started the QSK Worksheet today. It’s going to take me a lifetime to write each of these answers. I’m still on the first question, I’ve already written over half a page and I’m only half way done.

    I’m falling behind on the Exercises and readings too. I’ve only read half of Chapter 3 of A Guide to learning Independently. I haven’t completed the reading by Krause, Kerri-Lee. (2005). ‘The changing face of the first year…’ and I haven’t even started the reading, Vivekananda and Shores (1996).

    Additionally, I’m still yet to start and complete the Exercises from Chapters 15 & 16 in A Learning Companion.

    In summary, I need to complete the follow:

    • Exercise 1: Keeping a learning log (Optional)
    • Exercise 15: Previewing a book
    • Exercise 16: Previewing edited books
    • Exercise 2: Transferring your learning strengths
    • Exercise 3: Planning your approach to study
    • Read: Vivekananda and Shores (1996).
    • Read: Chapter 3, ‘Becoming an independent student’ of A Guide to Learning Independently
    • Submit: QSK Woksheet (Due 11 September 2009, 4 pm AWST)

  • Hello world!

    Date: 2009.09.03 | Category: Study Reflections, Unit SSK12 | Response: 0

    Reflection
    Unit: SSK12
    Week: 1
    Date: 03 September 2009

    This is my first journal entry.

    Week 1: What can I say about Week 1?

    After I discovered the Discussion Board it became apparent very quickly that I had a lot of catching up to do. The other students had gone wild and some of the threads were already 50 messages deep. There is considerable time spent reading threads on the message board and for the first few nights I have found myself reading through many of them, too many of them. It has become routine to sit down in front of the television — my arch nemesis — and trawl through the myriad discussion threads. It hasn’t taken me long to discover that this is a time waster and I need to develop a strategy to avoid wasting my valuable study time reading message in the Student Café. I’ve already started. My current strategy is to mark ‘Read’ on all the threads that aren’t relevant to me, such as ones that refer to other localities like Brisbane or the Northern Beaches, etc….

    Much to my surprise I found that many of the students were nervous about starting their studies at university. I found this strange because I was not nervous in the slightest. I have wondered whether I am just being complacent or if I have good reason to feel confident about my attempt at doing this course. It has made me think should I be nervous or am I entitled to feel comfortable at this point and see how it all pans out?

    On the weekend proceeding Week 1 I started the Quick Skills modules, unfortunately, so far I have only completed the Introduction course (QSK100). The rest of the week has been slow also. I started off by thoroughly reading the SSK12 Unit Information booklet. Then on Wednesday and Thursday I read Chapter 12 of A Guide to Learning Independently on the train and this evening I read through the first exercise of A Learning Companion while I was in the bath. Now I am writing this log entry, after which, I am going to complete Exercise 1 and write another log entry.

    Also this week, a few of the students that are living in the Sydney area have proposed the idea of forming a study group. I think this is a fantastic idea and I look forward to meeting my fellow students. I’m excited to see how the group will develop and how the dynamics of the different personalities will evolve. So far we have nailed down Thursday evenings after work somewhere in the city as our preferred time and place. The group started with a core of 4 people: Jarrod Wade, Pascal Mattar, Taryn Mielekamp and myself, all of us are doing the Bachelor of Business Studies through Monash University via OUA. This group quickly grew from 4 to 5 when we were joined by Nicole Amato and now there is also Cara Taylor, Melanie Beer, Sheree Brugel, Debra Gourlay, Simone Hrncir and Amanda-Lee Rinkin. Personally, I hope that the original four listed above can stay together as a study group for a good portion of the Business degree; I think 4 is a good number.