Desirable Follower and Leader Characteristics

As followers, we can give a lot of our power to leaders, expecting them to do the right thing, while forgetting that we too are a part of that relationship. We need to also take responsibility ourselves for creating and maintaining a partnership with our leader, based on what is good for us, as well as the team. We can remind our leaders that it is our collective job to build engagement, and to remind them that we are not passive sheep who simply do what we are told.

Followers have characteristics in common with leaders, so we need to work on some of the same skills.

There has been a lot of research which tells us what followers expect of leaders: "to be honest, forward-thinking, inspiring, and competent" (Daft, 2008, p. 209). Why? We want our leaders to be trustworthy, and they cannot be trustworthy unless they are honest with us and themselves. We want our leaders to be able to show us the way forward with a clear vision for our collective future: be our standard-bearer. We want our leaders to inspire us to reach for that future by helping us visualise that vibrant future. And we want our leaders to be competent in what they do: to be as expert as they can be at leading, and at the job they are tasked with.

However, we need to remember that leaders too have expectations of followers. We too need to be trustworthy, and that means we too need to be honest. We too need to be expert at the job we are tasked with, but we also need to become as as expert at following as we want our leaders to be at leading. The two areas where we followers differ are in being collaborative, and in getting the job done: and in being dependable and conscientious in delivering that work when and how we said we would.

These two follower factors are written up as being "co-operative" and "dependable" in the US. My students over the years have felt that both those terms are too cold for New Zealand, and don't emphasise the intertwined team nature of work. Successive cohorts have warmed those terms up to "collaborative" and "dependable/conscientious". I like that shift.

So while leaders need to create "a vision and inspiring others to achieve that vision", followers need to deliver on the vision, and work well together.

It sounds so easy, doesn't it!


Sam

References:

• Daft, Richard L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th Edition). USA: Thomson South-Western.
• Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It. USA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

read more "Desirable Follower and Leader Characteristics"

Research Design: qualitative versus quantitative

Our research design is the spirit in which we will make our decisions about the type of data we will collect. It needs to fit with our research philosophy, and fit with our research method, or methods. Some people call this a research strategy, but I know it as the research design.

The research design falls largely into two main clusters: qualitative, or quantitative, or a combination of both, as follows (McLeod, 2008; Veal, 2005):

1. Qualitative strategies, which look for behaviour (eg, inductive, word, image, sound or video coding, interview, focus group, ethnography, action research)
2. Quantitative strategies, which look for numerical statistical patterns (eg, deductive, survey, experimental approaches, mathematical modelling, SPSS)
3. Mixed methods strategies, using some of each (e.g., cross-sectional, cross-sequential or longitudinal studies)

Qualitative data sources include journals, unstructured observations, paintings, film stock, written records, images, historical accounts, reflections, diaries or recordings. It is more normal to take a descriptive approach - to explore feelings, impressions, what is not said, along with what is said, tone, pace and thematic responses - with qualitative data. Because of there being so many more variables than with quantitative data, qualitative data is harder to analyse (McLeod, 2008; Veal, 2005). Thematic analysis using codes - looking for themes within our data set and marking where a theme repeatedly occurs - is a fairly normal way of analysing qualitative data.

Where we have a small data set, qualitative research can be useful. It allows us to explore in depth how people think or feel - using case studies, interviews, focus groups and surveys yielding textual data - and be able to draw some conclusions. However, generalisability is a problem with qualitative studies, as is researcher bias. It can also take quite a long time to gather our data when undertaking qualitative study, as we are dealing with human subjects, and need to take our time to collect good quality data.

Normally, an inductive inquiry strategy is used with a qualitative research design (or qualitative data). It would also be normal to use a subjective research philosophy.

Quantitative data is usually a numeric measure that yields something which can be counted, ranked, categorised, graphed, or statistically analysed using a range of techniques and processes. Sources come from experiments, lab tests, surveys (yielding numerical data) or structured observations. Normally, an deductive inquiry strategy is used with a quantitative research design (or with quantitative data), and an objective research philosophy.

Hopefully that makes the difference between qualitative and quantitative research designs clear!


Sam

References:

• Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design (Third Edition). USA: Sage
  
• McLeod, S. A. (2008). Qualitative vs. Quantitative. Retrieved 7 July 2017 from https://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html
• Veal, A. J. (2005). Business Research Methods (Second Edition). Australia: Pearson Education

read more "Research Design: qualitative versus quantitative"

The Frustration of Rewrites

I have been rewriting an article for six months. I am sure that each time I do it, it gets a bit better, but I feel like I am loosing the will to live along the way. Reviewing is frustrating, but at least I know it is the same kind of frustration we get in consultancy, trying to help a client who is unwilling to be persuaded that their idea won't work.

Getting to absolute clarity and alignment of question - method - results is hard work. Writing doesn't arrive fully formed and perfect: it will always needs juggling, polishing and smoothing. It is worth the reworking; even if it feels like purgatory at the time and we end up being sick of the sight of the piece.

Trying to rewrite without the benefit of an unbiased reviewer perspective is very difficult. We need someone we can trust - who has expertise - to review our work and make suggestions that will make it stronger. A good reviewer is worth their weight in gold, as a good review will help to prevent us finding, once we get our data, that we have measured the wrong thing. Terrible to get to the end of all that effort and find we can't answer our question or provide a benefit for the reader's effort.

We need to proof-read before we get our reviewer to review. Our reviewers shouldn't be reviewing for spelling or grammar, but for clarity and logic. We mustn't waste our reviewers time by distracting them with our poor APA abilities or our lack of understanding of paragraph structure (both of which I have been guilty of often!).

One of the hardest lessons to learn is how to put our ego aside. Remembering that our reviewers are doing us a favour and are trying to help can get us past our own inflated ideas of ourselves. Yes, we would all like to think that our own writing is self-evident clarity right out of the box. However, any successful author will tell us that getting to crystal-clear communication is not that easy. We need to get over our "how dare they not see how incredibly clever and brilliant I am! How can they offer suggestions to make my work better? I was only asking them to sing to my glory!" mindset and get onto making changes.

We shouldn't leap onto our defensive podium too quickly following reviewer feedback. Sometimes reflecting and putting work away for a few days may give us the insight we need to 'hear' clearly what our reviewer is telling us. Making something tighter and more focused often means we have to get rid of some of our favourite pieces of carefully crafted wisdom. Banking the precious bits somewhere safe to recycle later sometimes helps us let go.

There are some other advantages to reviews. Going through repeated reviews improves our own ability to see flaws in other research as well, so makes us much less naive and more able to spot weaknesses in others' written work. It hones our own critical eye, which in turn makes us more aware when we write.

All good things :-)


Sam

read more "The Frustration of Rewrites"

Deliberately Accounting for Bias

(Kinane, 2017)

Recently I read a great little post from Harvard Business Review's daily mailer, "The Management Tip of the Day", for deliberately reducing bias in decision-making. This simple technique was proposed by Thomas Redman, and further, will not add much time to the process.

Confirmation bias is our very human trait of assuming new evidence aligns with what we were expecting to see. This is a hear hooves; expect horses, not zebras thing (Woodward, 1950).

We all know that it is impossible to have either enough time or enough data to make a perfect decision. We tend use the Pareto principle (Sanders, 1992), and make up our minds when we have about 80% of what we need. However, often that 80% may be all stacked up on the "reasons why we should" side of the ledger. We forget to carefully consult the another side: reasons why we shouldn't.

Thomas suggests that we put on the devil's advocate hat, and "Gather the data you would need to defend this opposite view, and compare it with the data used to support your original decision. Reevaluate your decision in light of the bigger data set. Your perspective may still be incomplete, but it will be much more balanced" (HBR, 5 July 2017).

What a simple idea. Not too difficult to do; not too time hungry. It helps us build in the 'what ifs' in our decision-making process as a habitual step, instead of simply skimming over the "consider alternatives" stage of the process.

Remember to include the "reasons why we shouldn't" in your decision-making.


Sam

References:

• HBR (5 July 2017). To Avoid Confirmation Bias in Your Decisions, Consider the Alternatives. https://hbr.org/newsletters/management-tip?spMailingID=17583325&spUserID=ODI5MDQxMTUwS0&spJobID=1060187336&spReportId=MTA2MDE4NzMzNgS2
• Kinane, A. (2017). Legends Rocking Horses images. Retrieved 5 July 2017 from http://www.legendsrockinghorses.co.uk/
• Redman, T. C. (10 March 2017). Root Out Bias from Your Decision-Making Process. https://hbr.org/2017/03/root-out-bias-from-your-decision-making-process?referral=00203&utm_source=newsletter_management_tip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tip_date&spMailingID=17583325&spUserID=ODI5MDQxMTUwS0&spJobID=1060187336&spReportId=MTA2MDE4NzMzNgS2
• Sanders, R. (1992). The Pareto Principle: its Use and Abuse. Journal of Services Marketing, 1(2), 37-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024706
• Woodward, T. E. (1950). "When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras". http://www.zebracards.com/

read more "Deliberately Accounting for Bias"

When Am I? Present Simple or Present Continuous

As I mentioned the other day, I have been taking a FutureLearn MOOC in beginner academic writing. This course contained a very nice exploration of two present tenses, and I thought I would share those with you all. When I went to primary school, we didn't look at parts of speech. Grammar and so forth was thought to be passé. Unfortunately this hands-off "we mustn't spoil their creativity" approach doesn't really help us learn to write well technically.

This aspect of the English present tenses was something that I had not thought about before. However, we switch between these two tenses when we are writing academically. Almost everything is written about as if it is happening in the present, so we need to understand these two tenses well in order to get our message clearly across.

The simple present tense is an action taking place or repeating now. The University of Reading's presenters gave the following situations where the present simple tense is used, which I have illustrated with examples:

• Permanent situations: This course is at beginner level.
• Habitual situations: Each week the course materials are easy to complete.

The present continuous tense is something that is more immediate than the present tense: it is unfolding right now, as we speak. It is used in the following circumstances, and is often flagged with "-ing" words:

• Temporary situations: I am finding this week’s course materials easy.
• Developing situations: This course is at a lower level than I had initially thought.
• Events happening now: This current exercise is very easy.

When I consider the complexity of this, it is no wonder so many international students find ordinary spoken English confusing, and academic writing a lost world. Courses such as this from the University of Reading and FutureLearn must really make a difference to the competence of non-English speakers. They have removed enough extraneous material to make what remains understandable, while not over-simplifying.

Epic.


Sam

• Reference: University of Reading (2017). A Beginner's Guide to Writing in English for University Study. Retrieved 4 July 2017 from https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/english-for-study/9/todo/13924

read more "When Am I? Present Simple or Present Continuous"

We can always learn something new

I have enrolled on a FutureLearn academic writing programme to polish up my writing style (here). I have just completed the first five weeks of a three course programme delivered by the University of Reading. While mainly focused on ESOL students, it contains enough tips to keep native English speakers engaged as well. The course started in May, but, as it is still open, I have been able to follow along, do the exercises, and to follow behind the other participants' discussion.

On the beginner course there was a nicely illustrated exploration of the present simple and the present continuous tenses. While native English speakers would never have thought about this - outside of the classroom - I found it a very interesting, and the examples very useful. I will be able to use some of these examples in my own teaching.

Also useful was an exploration of paragraph structure. To my chagrin I now I realise that I have been doing it 'all wrong'. Apparently I need a topic sentence to lead my paragraph, then I should expand into more detail or examples. I strongly suspect that I only plant the topic sentence flag once or twice in a piece of writing; habitually assuming that the topic sentence is 'self-evident' to the reader. A lack of consistency on my part, and something for me to build into my future writing habits.

Note that the first course is 'beginner'. If you take it, please don't expect it to go into great detail about APA or to have in-depth discussions of narrative, descriptive, expository or persuasive essay style. This course is designed to introduce international students to essay writing, with some high-level rules, and it does that well. It is also not a huge investment in time. English speakers should be able to get through the material within an hour each week without any difficulty.

While I don't agree with everything that the course has delivered, it has been a jolly useful reminder that there is always something to learn. If you want to brush up on your writing basics, I would firmly recommend it.


Sam

• Reference: University of Reading (2017). A Beginner's Guide to Writing in English for University Study. Retrieved 4 July 2017 from https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/english-for-study/9/todo/13924

read more "We can always learn something new"

Who Am I? First or Third Person Writing

Writing in the first person, or from the narrator's point of view, has traditionally been frowned upon in academic writing. The reason given is that the writing 'reads' more objectively if told in the third person; as 'the experts'. I have used a segment of Winston Churchill's 1940 speech to illustrate the difference in the image accompanying this post.

I find writing in the third person too arms-length, pompous and woolly. Because of my dislike of it, I advise my students that they may write in either the first or the third person: the choice is theirs. My only proviso is that they choose one standpoint, and remain consistent to it throughout each piece of their assignment work.

In my view, for an individual researcher, writing the introduction, methodology, and primary data results in the first person makes sense. This is because it is we who are doing this work, who are setting up this experiment, who are interested in finding out "why". Using the first person also can be good in our conclusion, when answering our research question. It completes the circle and brings us back to the introduction of our body of work.

However, as the Literature Review solely synthesises the views of experts, there is less place for the first person in this section. In fact, use of the first person can lead us, as a beginner researcher, astray into the forests of "I think" and "I believe", where the mythical and unevidenced creatures dwell. We mustn't do myths in a literature review: there is only space for facts. Gathering expert evidence and applying it clearly to our concept map is likely to read more objectively if we use the third person in our literature review. However, that does not mean that we can't use "I"; for example, "In summary, I have presented a balanced view of expert opinion on..." works as clearly as "In summary, a balanced view of expert opinion has been presented on". We just need to be sure we have avoided the unevidenced forests.

A growing number of experts feel that writing in the first person is more direct and engaging. Flesch was writing in the 1940s about the potential for 'thickness' - density - in text (1949), so this is not an new issue. Harvard Psychologist, Steven Pinker, has written some very good books on clear writing, and is on the speaking circuit talking about it. Helen Sword shows clearly why the third person is so woolly (2012, p. 37) by showing an example and a clearer, first person alternative:

Here it is demonstrated that the informativeness of a character can be quantified over a historical time scale. This formulation may play a role in resolving these controversies.
[...]“Here we attempt to resolve some of those controversies by demonstrating”— [the authors] would immediately become more energetic, more persuasive, and easier to understand.

Let's write in the first person :-)


Sam

References:

• Churchill, W. L. S. (1940, June 4). "We shall fight on the beaches". In His Majesty's Government, House of Commons Debates (Vol. 361, s. 796). Hansard. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1940/jun/04/war-situation
• Flesch, R. F. (1949). The Art of Readable Writing. USA: Harper & Row, Publishers.
• Pinker, S. (2014). Why Academics Stink at Writing. Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Academics-Stink-at/149105
• Pinker, S. (2014). The Sense of Style: The thinking person's guide to writing in the 21st century. USA: Penguin Group.
• Sword, H. (2012). Stylish Academic Writing. USA: Harvard University Press.

read more "Who Am I? First or Third Person Writing"

Māori Economy Investor Guide

For those of us who like to have a stake in the New Zealand economy, Māori businesses may be leading the way for long-term investment potential.

In Nelson, Wakatū Incorporation, is - in their words - " A Business of the Land and Sea" (He Taonga Tuku Iho). Made up of 4,000 descendants of the original Māori tangatawhenua of Te Tau Ihu (the top of the South Island), this pan-Iwi organisation is currently worth more than $260 million. In the foyer of their corporate office is a strategic plan with a 500 year horizon. That is truly a long-term view.

The New Zealand Trade and Enterprise arm of the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise released the Māori Economy Investor Guide in June 2017. It can be downloaded here as a pdf.

In a similar vein to Wakatū Incorporation, the investor guide talks about te pae tawhiti: the idea that each generation is a steward for those who are yet to come. The guide says:

"Māori recognise and consider that decisions made now will benefit the future generations to come. The well-being of future generations is always considered during decisions made"

Long term investors: don't forget to examine Māori and Iwi-owned businesses.


Sam

References:

• NZTE (June 2017). Māori Economy Investor Guide. Retrieved 2 July 2017 from http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/infrastructure-growth/maori-economic-development/documents-image-library/maori-economy-investor-guide.pdf
• Wakatū Incorporation (n.d.). Welcome. Retrieved 2 July 2017 from http://www.wakatu.org/#welcome

read more "Māori Economy Investor Guide"

How Research Components Fit Together

When we prepare our methodology, we have to work from the big picture down to the detail.

There are four layers to this, which I am going to introduce you to with a quick overview. You can choose to watch the following clip, or read on below.



First, research philosophy. A research philosophy is a belief about the way in which data about a phenomenon should be gathered, analysed and used, or “how we come to know things”. A research philosophy also called epistemology (what is known to be true), not (what is believed to be true).

There are two key clusters of research philosophies: objective, the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings; and subjective; that our thoughts are the only unquestionable fact of our experience, that there is no external or objective truth for everyone. That experience is individual, not shared or communal.

Some examples of objectivist research philosophies are positivism, postpositivism, and pragmatism. Some examples of subjectivist research philosophies are social constructivism, advocacy, social justice, interpretivism and critical realism.

Second, inquiry strategy. This is how we are going to approach our research question. Will we start with a theory, write our hypothesis, observe our data, then see how close our hypothesis was to our observation? That’s a deductive inquiry strategy, or hypothesis testing (empiricist). A deductive approach fits with an objective research philosophy. An example of a deductive research question is “Hourly micro-breaks improve employee productivity by 5%: true or false?”.

On the other hand, we might first observe our data, then find a pattern, then come up with a tentative hypothesis, then form a theory. That’s an inductive inquiry strategy, where we wait to see what arises from the data. An inductive approach fits with a subjectivist research philosophy, and an example could be “Employee productivity: do hourly micro-breaks have a positive effect?”

Third comes research design. Research designs are the spirit in which we will make our decisions about the data we are going to collect. Will we go for quantitative, numerical data, which we tend to observe or record largely at arms-length, or will we go for qualitative, textual data, which we tend to obtain from our subjects, face to face?

Qualitative strategies seek to understand behaviours. Data gets analysed by coding, and thematic analysis. A qualitative approach fits with a subjectivist research philosophy and an inductive research design.

Quantitative strategies look for statistical patterns. Data gets analysed using tools like Chi squared, regression analysis or mathematical modelling software such as SPSS. A quantitative approach fits with an objective research philosophy and a deductive research design.

Then lastly we choose our actual data collection method. This is likely to be interviews, focus groups, or open-ended surveys which fit with subjective, inductive and qualitative research; or observations, experimentation or closed-ended surveys, which fit with objective, deductive and quantitative research.

Hope that helps you understand how it all fits together!


Sam

References:

• Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design (Third Edition). USA: Sage
  
• McLeod, S. A. (2008). Qualitative vs. Quantitative. Retrieved 7 July 2017 from https://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html
• Veal, A. J. (2005). Business Research Methods (Second Edition). Australia: Pearson Education

read more "How Research Components Fit Together"

A piece of Kiwiana: Pecking Order

Pecking Order is a clever, refreshing and lovely documentary film by Slavko Martinov, with Mike Kelland.

I saw the movie recently at a not-for-profit fund raiser, and laughed until I cried. I am surprised that I was able to laugh, as I have met so many of the character types who graced the movie in many volunteer clubs: in dog showing, in dressage ribbon days, in sports clubs and in service clubs. If it hadn't been so funny, it would be terrifying. Or it might have been heart-breaking.

Interestingly enough, I found Ricky Gervase's The Office 'too real' to be funny, because I had worked with too many of his caricatures in workplaces. Pecking Order's people were real, and perhaps it was their genuineness, and because they had been treated with respect and without judgement, that the humour of the situations they were in came through.

These people are PASSIONATE about what they do. Showing chickens gives meaning to their lives, and you can see that in every take of the film. The film-makers seem to understand that, and give the club members space to be themselves on the screen.



It seems that the Christchurch Poultry, Bantam and Pigeon Club have entered into the spirit of this film with gusto. They have run special showings of the movie, and use it as a fund-raiser. Egg money, if you will ;-D

Definitely worth a watch.


Sam

References:

• Martinov, S. (Director), Martinov, S. & Kelland, M. (Producers) (2017). Pecking Order Trailer. Retrieved 14 June 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyqrX4ySvKg
• Croot, J. (16 May 2017). Movie Review: Pecking Order - a celebration of passion, obsession and humanity's capacity for competitiveness. Retrieved 14 June 2017 from http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/92586487/pecking-order-director-slavko-martinov-says-his-film-was-a-happy-accident

read more "A piece of Kiwiana: Pecking Order"

Quoting: the idea of pants, or actual pants?

Students have difficulty sometimes in getting their heads around putting in an APA citation versus quoting.

They think that just including an "(Author, date)" APA citation is all they have to do, regardless of what they have used from that author.

Quotes, if from a numbered document, require a page number. It is a flag to say "this is exactly where I borrowed this from". The marker allows both yourself and others to return to the exact spot that the borrowing originated. It also indicates who wrote the words.

I often have students who have referenced (great), but who haven't yet indicated who wrote the actual words. I point out that it is fine to borrow from others, as long as we put the borrowings in quote marks to show that this writing was created by someone else. I tell them that we do this by using double quote marks as a flag to the reader to say these are "the EXACT words of the author" (UNE, 2015, p. 1).

Please note the inclusion of the page number there :-)

However, this seems to be such a hard idea to get across. So I thought of an analogy. I tell my students that it is like someone saying to us "I love your pants!" And we say:

"Yes, I got the idea from Sam!"

When we should have said "Yes - they're Sam's pants. Aren't they great?!".

I think this illustrates the difference in borrowing ideas versus borrowing things. But I would be interested in any other analogies you have come up with - the more the merrier!


Sam

• Reference: UNE (2015). APA: Quoting authors. USA: University of New England. Retrieved 25 June 2017 from https://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/11669/REF_APA-Quoting-authors.pdf

read more "Quoting: the idea of pants, or actual pants?"

How do I create a survey?

Want to survey your team? Your customers? Your potential market?

The easiest way I know to do this is with SurveyMonkey (here). You can easily sign up for a free account, and have a play. The free accounts have some limitations: your surveys are limited to ten questions, and you cannot export linked data. By that, I mean that each question is exported individually, not still connected to the rest of the survey data that your respondent has entered. For example, if you asked if participants were male or female, and later asked them if they preferred red or blue, you would not be able to tell how many men chose blue. You can't cross-tab your results with a free account.

That is not a mission killer while you are teaching yourself how to use the software though, and SurveyMonkey is pretty easy to learn. To create a survey, you simply drag-and-drop questions onto your 'design survey' tab, and then fill in the question and answer text. Each question type has 'help' text floating above it, so you don't need any additional Help windows.

SurveyMonkey have their own channel on YouTube, which you can access here. You will find lots of 'how to' videos which make learning so much easier than a static help file.

After you have explored the free accounts and know what you are likely to use this for, I think it is worth signing up for a professional account. This allows you to export your linked data, to ask unlimited questions, and more question and survey logic options. I have had a paid professional account for a number of years, and the NZD$300 investment has proven worthwhile.

With a paid account you can also use skip logic on questions. Each answer to a question can send the respondent to another question (or page). For example, someone who selected "Blue" to their favourite colour could be routed to a follow-up question, such as "Why is that?". Even better, you can insert piped text, where the you can incorporate the earlier answer in your follow up question. So where Q.3 was a multiple choice question about favourite colours (eg, Red, Blue, Yellow, Green), Q.4 can ask, "Why did you prefer Blue?" and Q.10's multiple choice options can include [favourite colour] as a response, so you can learn more about that blue answer (Schindler, 9 January 2016).

The analysis tools will graph and cluster your data for you, though, as mentioned before, the free accounts have limited ability to download data. With a professional account, SurveyMonkey gives you quite a lot of options in analysing your data once you have collected it. You get a range of formatted export choices, as pdf, PowerPoint, Excel or CSV. You can also export your linked raw response data to Excel, Google Sheets, pdf or SPSS, then further crunch your numbers off-line.

I wouldn't consider getting a paid account until you have signed up for a free account and have gained some mastery. Experiment with polls and other small surveys until you get confident with asking questions and know how much data complexity you need. There is no point collecting data if you aren't going to do anything with it.

Save getting a paid account for when you are ready to need quite layered information.


Sam

• Reference: Schindler, E. (9 January 2016). SurveyMonkey Review. Retrieved 1 July 2017 from http://au.pcmag.com/surveymonkey/40104/review/surveymonkey

read more "How do I create a survey?"

Student response systems

While I am sure that many of my US colleagues will know all about student response systems (SRSs), they are not that common here in New Zealand. Some of our larger Unis may use them for first year classes, but, as far as I am aware, they aren't widely used in the Polytechnic sector.

Sometimes called 'clickers', an SRS is something that you use to vote on an option when in a large seating space. The lecturer/compère will ask you to vote, and you select the option you feel is correct. The lecturer/compère gets the voting summary, and reports the outcome. Think Who Wants to be a Millionaire's "Ask the Audience" option, and the compère's role in that.

If a lecturer uses an SRS, it can be integrated into a workshop session in a lecture theatre by using a 'talk to your neighbour' strategy. You show a problem, and first the students load their individual answers in. Then they discuss with their neighbours, and load their shared, agreed answers in. Then the lecturer debriefs the learning and explains the outcomes. Professor Eric Mazur from Harvard was one of the earliest proponents of this type of interactive learning, which can be viewed in action below:



And then Professor Mazur's rationale for how he learned to teach this way here:



One potential SRS solution I am interested in is Socratic, which has a free app for students to pop on their phone. I am hoping that my institution will trial the full package, so we see if it creates more interaction in lecture theatre work.

It should. Fingers crossed.


Sam

References:

• Allen, B. (13 April 2017). Responsive teaching. Retrieved 14 June 2017 from https://eic.rsc.org/ideas/responsive-teaching/3007116.article
• Harvard Magazine (2012). Eric Mazur shows interactive teaching. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wont2v_LZ1E
• Mazur, E. (2009). Confessions of a Converted Lecturer (Abridged, 2012). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvw68sLlfF8

read more "Student response systems"