18 January 2012
The Impact conundrum concerns how it might be measured. How does one quantify impact?
Impact can have two distinct effects; one concerning input impact and the other output impact.
The first relates to how the ‘shock of the new affects’ the changes of behaviour and the speed at which change occurs in behaviour.
The second is the improvement in outcomes set against the degree of turbulence caused in both breadth and length as a result. A positive response on either is all that is required for an overall positive impact.
Graphically it would appear as shown above in a formula
Impact assesses the striking force between physical objects which should cause an equal and opposite reaction, yet in e-learning terms, ‘technology in action’ in this sense is metaphysical and therefore beyond a physical laws and measurement. Capturing a sense of how a teacher feels (excited, challenged, enthralled, bored, disappointed) becomes the language of impact. Impact is measured by the emotive responses recorded by those affected. That language is based on the experience summed up in the rate and profundity of change against the benefits felt and the degree of turbulence caused in getting through the change. Attitude itself is a critical factor in the degree of take up and success engendered.
It is possible that we have been deceived, in the past, in our search for the impact of technology, expecting it to be physically manifested and overt in everything teachers do. It could be that successful impact is evidenced by the opposite; technology use being one element in many artfully constructed student-centred learning experiences that are part of everyday practice such that the technology is not really seen nor acknowledged, simply being used when deemed appropriate for learning as planned. This appears to be the case with the use of Moodle VLEs to pick one example.
Perhaps only new or troublesome or unsatisfactory technologies with little immediate application to practice remain on the surface and open to view, and thus to questioning through the turbulence they cause to the smooth running of the curriculum? The greatest impact of technology actually occurs where its use is not seen, nor recognised and only emerges through prompts that promote reflection on practice. The value of technology is not in the way it alters the nature of education but alters its delivery and the structure of our working day.
Perhaps a better test to frame impact is to consider how teachers and support staff might work without the support of technology assess how long the College would remain open if technology were removed.
Social technologies in education and a new Velvet Revolution
It used to be that for the numbers of students to teach and the time and resources available, learning was done on a group basis, characterised by all starting and finishing in the same place and time and following roughly the same journey. This method encouraged the development of convergent thinking as a mental discipline and a tool for further learning. The application of learning technology affords personalised learning behaviour and a unique learning experience for each student, based on the context of their situation and preferences. It also supports and encourages Divergent thinking as an equal partner, where imagination and the personal perspective can be captured and acknowledged.
This has led over the last few years to a ‘velvet revolution’ in education, where the changes are so smooth they are hardly felt. The introduction of Social Media into mainstream life and its possible impact on education is a case in point and is one of a long line of examples of education picking up on lifestyle changes and adapting them to learning rather than seeing them created within the education world.
It has led many to question what the changes are because it is difficult to disentangle personal behaviour choices from the orthodox approaches to the application of education as a work process. There are persistent voices clamouring for a method to measure Impact. But it is possible that we have been deceived in our search for the impact of technology, expecting it to be physically manifested and overt in everything teachers do. Nice neat clear edges, such that the application of technology can be seen as an overlay. But it seems that what we might call successful impact is evidenced by the opposite; technology use being one element in many artfully constructed student-centred learning experiences that are part of everyday practice, bleeding across all aspects of life, such that the technology is not really seen nor acknowledged, simply being used when deemed appropriate for learning as planned.
Now, with the Web 2.0 generation we see this going even further. We are facing the next major shift in the pedagogical application of technology. It is based on the realisation that when personalised learning is combined with the new social media, and the experiences are shared in common, it creates a collective consciousness that can, when directed by a teacher, be described as learning. It isn’t that people haven’t formed informal networks before; it happens in every group and project. The difference is the speed, immediacy and granularity of thoughts and ideas gives a new degree of frequency, leading to greater intimacy and nuance to that understanding. An illustration of this would be a book club who meet each week to discuss a book. And the same group tweeting each other as they read and react to each chapter or twist in the plot. There is less summary and more formative opinion that may need correcting with each turn of the page.
Social media can be capture nothing more than the daily banalities, but when focussed or given a deeper purpose and guided, it can stimulate thinking that converts to constant modified understanding which settles (until the next message) into learning. In part this has happened with other technologies in the administration of the learning but now we see this activity moving into the core of the learning itself.
This is the new frontier for learning technologies; learning being seen as a the development of a collective consciousness of a group of like minded students on a given subject based on their shared and on-going personal experience. We will need to develop personal learning space for students, which will include the redesign of curriculum delivery to allow all the confederation of learning experiences, but formally recognised as learning rather than social and guided by the teacher.
It is the opposite to traditional teaching which is the delivery of a collective truth, learnt as individuals, by cohort (class).
Facebook for example is a social tool in action but a collective conscience by experience. But it lacks a direction of summary points that a teacher might provide which is why it is more social than learning but it has both elements. Without a teacher, the learning could be described as ‘accidental’ and is no less valid for this. The teacher is like the conductor of an orchestra; it suggests a much subtler arrangement in leadership of the route, and the nuances of insight picked up on the way. This does not change factual learning but the understanding and application of facts. It supports both convergent thinking and divergent thinking.
So what might be the immediate ramifications for e-learning?
1. What is intriguing is how successful this approach is to learning as students become more adept at manipulating the technology on the one hand, and the degree of intellectual maturity they bring to a process that implies an ever increasing degree of independence and self management in all technological interactions of which education is but one.
2. Courses will develop a degree of organic life that will move from the peripheral to the mainstream, ebb and flow for the duration of the course., in part grown and given direction by the group.
3. Learning becomes more democratised but by consensual movement rather than by voting.
Students are gently but inevitably coerced into considerations of learning in the context of their life and circumstances. What is learnt is fined tuned to each individual in the group.
4. A new accommodation of curriculum design is required to accommodate these changes.
5. The changes will be sufficiently disruptive to alter the curriculum design.
6. The new understanding will include confrontations by the student of their approaches and attitudes to their learning. Social media often contains emotive communications because how one feels about learning is the operant motivation to communicate to others.
7. Issues concerning the responsibility for learning to the outcomes agreed for the course might be compromised id teachers aren’t able to keep control of both pace and direction of learning that concludes at an agreed point, time and cost. These remain core teacher tasks.
What teachers now need to do
1. Don’t give up on the core values of what is good teaching and learning. These technologies do not replace any of them, they simply offer new ways to express them that can be more engaging, exciting, interest and personal to the student.
2. Social media will not replace VLEs but will add another layer on top of what is already available. All formal learning requires a degree of home hosting so the teacher can control pace and direction (see above), but the ubiquitous nature of social media will allow student new ways and methods to express their learning.
This isn't e-learning as such. I would rather call it simply 'modern learning'.
08 December 2011
How we manipulate ideas is a critical part of mastering and learning from them. Ideas can be tested and considered an through a process of revision, discounting and revising come to a considered conclusion that has a sense of being an absolute position. This type of thinking works not the basis of rational thought leads to inescapable conclusions that cant be improved until the component parts that led to the conclusion are themselves revised. This is the process of convergent thinking.; all paths lead to one conclusion. It is often described as the domain of the scientists because of the the link to rational deduction and the formulation of laws.
If convergent thinking is the basis of rational thought, would its opposite be a definition of chaotic thinking? What is Divergent thought and is it of value?
In short, it is the opposite of convergence. Divergent thinkers tend to see things differently.
Divergent thinkers rethinking the problem to find novel ways to define the problem or novel ways to solve it.
The conclusion to this is that the best thinkers are those capable of doing both and being able to bring both thinking methods into play as required dependent upon the situation confronted. In the past it seems convergent thinking was valued and seen as the arbiter of intelligence. So it seems that each is equally valuable in personal development and they are the ying and yang of learning. Another approach to divergent thought is the use of the imagination to ‘see’ problems in different ways. An example would be to think of how many uses one can find for a paperclip. Divergent thinking relates to imagination, inspiration, and bringing subjective experience to a problem. Is Divergent thinking the home of the artist and the dreamer?
A review of the literature has identified 5 thinking skills that are used to gauge the ability to think divergently. They are:
Fluency: The ability to generate ideas & meaningful responses
Flexibility: The ability to repurpose ideas
Originality: The capacity to produce rare and novel ideas
Elaboration: The capacity to embellish and develop ideas
It is possible that group learning tends to favour convergent thinking learning because the group will tend to look for and draw towards common ideas.
The ability to personal learning space to support individual and highly contextualised learning encourages divergent thinking. It allows the student to identify accidental or informal learning, to contextualise this into their unique social and work based circumstances, to see for themselves what interests them to enquire further and where deficiencies in learning are holding back professional effectiveness. In short, personal learning space encourages and accommodates divergent thinkers.
Divergent thinkers traditionally scored less in intelligence testing but now, the imaginative side of intelligence is finding in a renascence. With personal learning space, technology has become sufficiently refined and flexible to accommodate more easily the divergent aspects of thinking, capturing, marshalling and presenting the results.
Caroli M. & Sagone E. (2011) Creative thinking & big five factors of personality measured in Italian schoolchildren: Faculty of Educational Science - University of Catania. Italy
24 November 2011
Now e-learning is 11 years old, I wanted to know how teachers now felt about technology in teaching and to what degree our attitude to technology in education has changed. How might that affect what and how we train teachers both in the initial and ongoing stage.
The study is funded by LSIS and has so far involved 700 teachers responding to 17 descriptions of technology in action and how they feel about technology. Instead of asking about the processes of technology we wanted to know how teachers felt about their use of technology in teaching.
The results are illuminating. Because we asked teachers to examine their feelings, we were in essence asking them about their confidence levels. In response to this emotive approach, respondents felt the need to justify, explain, defend or champion their choices with over 93.000 words of free response in addition to their responses, and, with their choices gave us 247,000 in 700 individual stories of current practice in using technology. This Paper summarises the main points of those stories and what the implications might be for those who train teachers, support and manage their continued development and offer training.
Confidence emerges in our study as the critical measurement in the effective use of technology. We think e-confidence and e-maturity are closely related and one is a measurement of the other. Teachers who are confident about and use technology in their private lives are curious how that use can transfer into their teaching practice. For many the problem lies not in technology generally but how it might be applied to purposeful pedagogy. 10 years ago, teachers were new to digital technology and anxious about how it might change working patterns and indeed being in work at all.
When it comes to expert help, teachers come to technology with curiosity to see how it might help teaching and learning rather than being passive and waiting to be directed how to use it. Training today needs to be more about help in applying technology. The days of directing how software works, shown in abstract seem to be over. A level of confidence in confronting technology to use in teaching is more important than the level of knowledge about specific technologies.
Contrary perhaps to how organisational cultures may want it, the technology used in learning is fragmenting and is supporting highly individualised patterns of use. Increasingly this involves the use of technology owned by the students. The common factor that holds the creative chaos that could ensue together is the application of the constant values of good teaching & learning and it is evident throughout the narratives how well teachers attempt to describe the use of technology in terms of its ability to serve teaching and learning. It provides the compass bearings that make this apparent jigsaw of technology – as it is the combination of software/apps and the technologies themselves that create the possibilities we see as manifest in the narratives. The uniform and regularised use of large, centralised technology hosted by the college has its place but it is no longer the only game in town. Equally there is no one way to use technology. ‘Best practice’ is perhaps better now put aside and replaced with ‘great practice in a given circumstance’. Teachers are very good at taking the essence of a great idea and reformatting it to their own circumstances (although this may not be happening as it should). This fragmentation of technology and ideas for its use reminds us of the value of Divergent Thinking and the power of creative thinking that is such an important part of the skills and abilities demanded by HE and Governments. The uniqueness of this move towards personal journeys supports divergence and allows ‘a hundred flowers to bloom’. Instead of teachers being told there is one way and ‘best practice’ means ‘the only practice’, we are being told of great or at least promising practice in given circumstances.
A copy of the full Paper is attached by clicking on the title
13 February 2011
Paul Manning, Kirsty Bryant and I met Geoff Petty in London a couple of weeks back. This from the handout he gave to the audience, based in pat on what he said in his presentation. The following is a direct lift in which he places reflection central to any enterprise in improving performance. It is a great idea that we each have out own 'theory in use' He draws heavily on Donald Schon and is cycle of reflective thinking.
This from the horse's mouth.
"Every teacher and every learner has a theory about learning. You are no exception and you will have a set of beliefs, ideas, and assumptions about the nature of learning, and teaching. You will believe that certain practices bring about learning, and certain others don’t. You will use this theory both to plan your lessons, and to decide what to do while you teach. Schön called this your ‘theory-in-use’. Never mind what you might write in an essay or tell your tutor, it is your ‘theory-in-use’ which guides what you do, and informs you as you plan and teach your lessons.
If you ask yourself ‘how shall I teach this topic’ you will consider your ‘theory-in-use’ to help you decide. If a student started playing up in one of your lessons, you would use your ‘theory-in-use’ to decide what to do about it. If a lesson did not go well, it would be your ‘theory-in-use’ that you would use to explain to yourself why it went badly, and to decide how to make that lesson, or the next one, go better.
Your theory-in-use is:
1. What you believe learning to be, and how you believe teachers can bring learning about.
that leads to...
2. Your lesson plans, problem solving in the classroom, explanations for what worked and what didn’t in past lessons etc
that leads to...
3. How you teach
As your ‘theory-in-use’ guides your every action it is clearly very important. If it faithfully describes the reality of how your students learn, then it will be an accurate guide for you, and you will be able to teach very well. If it doesn’t describe that reality very well, then you will never teach effectively, except sometimes by accident! It is clearly crucial to get this ‘theory-in-use’ as right, and as comprehensive, as you can get it. So how can you go about that?
One way of course is to do what you are doing right now - to read about learning and teaching. Another is to attend an initial teacher training course. These can help, but in the end you must integrate this learning into your own ‘theory-in-use’ for it to affect what you do. This requires that you make your own sense, of these learning experiences, and work out how to teach as a consequence. For example, to learn about Maslow’s theory of motivation, and even to write about it is one thing, to integrate it into your ‘theory-in-use’ is quite another. That would require you to work out what Maslow’s theory means in practice for your students, and then to use this understanding to improve your student’s motivation. That is very demanding, and will require much thought and practice!
In the end you will only develop a fully effective ‘theory-in-use’ by teaching, and most particularly by reflecting on your experience of teaching. It is important, and difficult, to go right round the reflective learning cycle as described by Donal Schön; just doing and reviewing is not enough!
As you reflect your ‘theory-in-use’ improves and so you become not only more effective, but also more adaptable and better able to solve problems. Effective teachers are always changing what they do, this is because they are continually learning how better to teach".
12 January 2011
I was listening to a podcast given by Diana Louthenberg, a teacher in the USA. She started with the reminder that schools and colleges are no longer a place where knowledge resides and where students need to go in order to get it from the teachers. She then went on to argue that we need to teach students that they come to college in order to deal with getting things wrong. She continued on the lines that there is no universal truth, there is no one way to understand anything, there is no common experience and we can no longer think about standardising student presentation of learning, so wrong in the sense of what we make of the world is redundant as an idea. The use of portfolios is an attempt to individualise learning by allowing the capture of accidental and contextualised learning to influence what is learnt more formally. By getting things wrong what she meant was that learners need to be able to present their own experience and understanding and teachers need to help them do this in a way that is authentic to the learner. In other words we can no longer say there isa right way of presenting experiential learning. Perhaps getting things wrong is the way we can all learn and getting things right is simply the outcome of experience. To be fair the awarding bodies don't tell us that we can only teach in a particular way although the use of guided learning hours still suggests that the classroom is the only space where teaching can take place and is the sole factor in ensuring quality learning.
Yesterday at the 'learning without frontiers' conference, Lord Puttnam stated something that those working in or in e-learning have known for some time; that simply using technology to enhance orthodox teaching and learning will never be transformational and we have to use the new technology to change the way we go about teaching and learning. Innovation is doing new things in new ways and colleges that rise to that challenge will survive and prosper.
Laufenberg is part of the TED podcast series available from itunes.
Proceedings from 'Learning without frontiers' is not yet published.
31 December 2010
I know John Stone who wrote the article below in FE News. I have sat with him a few times in meetings and presentations. He even attended one that the College gave on the subject of staff development. I thought I would quote heavily from his article that I have referenced at the end because what he says chimes so clearly with the new approach to individual accountability of staff for improvement and a move away from the herd movement that has been around for so long. He writes the piece in the main to drum up business for Learning & Skills Network business of which he is the Chief Executive. I was seconded to the LSC for 3 months a few years back.
He cites new insight into what motivates people at work and it is is much around the new professionalism model. His argument reminds me of the historical movement from mass education (large classes in rank and file with rote learning at the same pace on a common linear progression) to more personal education; always desirable but not possible until of course new technologies have made the idiosyncratic approach possible. The point is that personalisation has always been a good idea but only recently has the means to support it been available. We now have the technologies to do the same with staff as group based development gives way to individual development, literally person by person using 'technology for the one'.
The first part of John Stone’s article deals with the challenge and meaning of ‘outstanding‘ and is therefore of interest to us. He writes this as if it is a personal message to College leaders
"Until very recently, FE leaders had focused on 'navigating their ships' to the nearest beacon of an Ofsted rating of 'outstanding'. But what does 'outstanding' mean under the new Government? For instance, does grade 1 actually deliver security in the light of recent changes or is what you deliver more important than how well? Is 'outstanding' still a goal for leaders, managers and staff to aim for? Reassuringly the answer is yes, but what we mean by 'outstanding' has changed: it is no longer just what is required by Ofsted. How your students, staff, employers and the local community rank you is now just as important, particularly as learners begin having to contribute more of their own money to fund their FE studies. To survive and thrive, colleges need to be truly outstanding in the eyes of all of these stakeholders – and that means motivating these groups well enough that they invest their future (and money) in you and are willing to go that extra mile when required. However, in an age of 'bigger society', all of your stakeholders will be looking for a clear return on their investment.
Why invest in leadership now?
For colleges to be truly outstanding in this new, wider sense of the word, they fundamentally need three things:
1. the leadership ability to spot the best way forward and forcefully turn the ship when needed;
2. motivated staff with the autonomy and skills to make these turns as quickly and effectively as possible; and
3. the ability to hear and act on what learners want and to make quick and sometimes tough calls when needed".
In his second point he describes 'motivation in action': the ability of staff to be agile enough to adapt to change quickly.
He goes on to develop this as follows:
"Colleges do this by asking tough questions:
1. how do you motivate staff when you can not even guarantee them a future beyond the next restructure?
2. how do you tap into and fully realise the commercial potential of staff knowledge of what employers and learners really think, want and need in a way that both drives the college forward and also rewards and motivates this sharing?
3. how do you ask staff at every level to go that extra mile and keep the emotional commitment, so that when changes are required staff make them outstandingly well"?
In asking these questions he places motivation as critical to this but it also requires the mental conditioning that comes from professional development as opposed to staff development. This is another straw in the wind of the emergence of the two types of development where the one (Professional development) conditions and prepares for the other (Staff development)
He goes on to discuss some of these issues but in answering the question about the motivation of staff, he reduces it down to three new approaches. I have asked Sarah Marsh to add the book to the Library catalogue that he refers to.
"A new approach to motivation
In his recent bestseller on motivation (Drive – the surprising truth about what motivates us, 2010), Daniel Pink brings together 10 years of evidence and research on what really motivates, engages and empowers staff to become the key drivers to organisational success.
Traditional carrot-and-stick motivators no longer work and, more often, do harm. Instead a new approach to motivation is required that incorporates three key drivers:
1. mastery – the urge to professionally develop and get better at something that matters
2. autonomy – the desire to direct our own lives, and to be trusted and empowered to do so
3, purpose – the intrinsic motivation to add value, to do what we do in a way that makes a real difference, whether that is to learners, to other staff, or to the wider community
As human beings we are all susceptible to making emotional decisions and then rationalising them. Think of the last interview you did, purchase you made, manager you decided to work hard for. Pause for a moment and think of someone who motivated the best out of you, who got you to emotionally decide to go that extra mile. What was it that motivated you to do that?
Almost certainly, words that spring to mind will include trust, respect, clarity of goals and the autonomy to reach them. Organisations that achieve these values enjoy clear delegation of responsibility and accountability – rather than the dumping of tasks – and tend to go on to sustain, develop and empower their workforce through outcome-focused one-to-one coaching".
Stone argues for staff to be given space and time to think and an increased degree of autonomy to customise that contribution based on professional mastery and a shared sense (one would hope) in the value of good education. The critical given for college staff is a belief in the power of education.
He goes on to link ‘staff freedom’ or autonomy to being an essential part of the recipe for outstanding. He argues that one follows the other and it seems intuitive that to be outstanding means a departure from simply eradicating error or having a herd approach to improvement.
He is able to argue this point (and this is where my particular interest emerges) because of the technologies that now exist to make this highly granular approach possible through the use of the reflective portfolio.
Seeing how LSIS are using portfolio approaches to match up with the IfL approach to reflective thinking and writing, there is consensus emerging on this new approach. LSIS, IfL and the LSN by inference all now support the reflective and portfolio-based approach to learning.
As with all articles in this blog, it is intended to provide food for thought to reflect against for CPD.
A happy new year to all. Congratulations to Sue George and Jo Bartlett on their recent award of QTLS.
John Stone is chief executive of LSN, the not-for-profit organisation focused on making learning work for further and higher education, local authorities and schools, public services, work-based learning and international organisations
Source: FE News 23rd. December 2010, accessed at http://www.fenews.co.uk/featured-article/a-new-map-for-reaching-outstanding
Pink D.H. (2011) Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates is to work: Canongate Books London accessed 20.12.10 at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/184767769X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
31 October 2010
This from the IfL and NUS. It continues in the same vein as previous thoughts from the IfL about what is good teaching. Importantly it is in partnership with the NUS and mirrors our own work at Thanet in involving students in this conversation. The IfL is encouraging us to go further in thinking about brilliant teaching.
Rather than add the report as an attachment I have copied directly below.
IfL and NUS launch joint teaching and learning campaign
The Institute for Learning (IfL) and the National Union of Students (NUS) have launched a joint campaign to highlight the value of brilliant teaching and learning in further education and skills. The campaign was launched at the NUS Further Education Zone Conference in Liverpool on 28 and 29 October 2010, where learners were invited to debate what makes a brilliant teacher. The discussion is being extended to teachers and learners alike through a dedicated Facebook page.
IfL’s deputy chief executive, Lee Davies, said, “IfL represents over 170,000 teachers and trainers in further education and skills, and learners’ views form a key part of our members’ professional development and their ability to enhance the learner experience. I'm looking forward to hearing the ideas from this year's student representatives on what makes a brilliant teacher, as part of our campaign with NUS on teaching and learning.
“Listening to the learner voice is all very well; what is important is that we hear and understand and take action to ensure that we are bridging the gap between learners’ expectations and the teaching and training they receive. Today’s learners are understandably more demanding, really well equipped to engage in technology, and able to articulate what they want from teaching and learning. The average age of teachers and trainers coming into the FE and skills sector is 38, and we need to make sure that they are able to harness the technologies that young people use, for example.”
Shane Chowen, vice-president for further education at NUS said, “Learners expect the highest standards and want their teachers and trainers to be up to date in their specialist field and in their teaching and training methods. We are delighted to have this opportunity to debate the subject directly with teachers and trainers at our conference and through social media, and look forward to continuing our work with IfL to discuss and promote the highest standards of teaching and learning in our sector. We would also like to thank IfL for sponsoring our conference again this year.”
Callum Morton, an NUS conference delegate from Amersham and Wycombe College, shared his experience of productive collaboration between teachers and learners. He explained, “We have introduced a new structure at the college where class representatives and teachers meet three times a year to discuss improvements to course delivery.
“This approach is more effective than an annual review, which is complete only when the year is over. It enables students to have a say in their learning while also helping our teachers with new ideas and feedback on the course. I have not yet met a teacher who doesn’t want to help and improve the courses they teach.”
22 September 2010
In a Paper I worked on at BECTA we were considering how one might describe a set of common goals or measures for effective WFD for e-learning that starts from the following position:
1.It is desirable that individual staff members develop their potential to be more effective as part of the larger developing workforce
2.A developing workforce is one that recognises the constant challenge of the new and with the imagination to apply the properties of technology to purposeful and effective teaching and learning.
3.A developed workforce is one that tackles this with confidence.
4.A confident workforce is one that is not afraid of the challenges new technologies may bring to teaching and learning.
We proposed a concept of WFD for e-learning that has 2 elements:
1.Reflection and reflective practice should be embedded into WFD for e-learning in an environment of empowered teaching staff taking responsibility and accounting for their own professional development
2.That any development activity, regardless of organisation and outcomes, should promote or demonstrate one or more of 7 over-arching behaviours i.e. ‘meta-skills’ that form the ‘characteristics of e-confidence’.
This is predicated on the belief that
1. Every teacher has a unique learning path and story to tell
2. That a developed workforce is one capable of facing the challenging demands placed on it by the organisation with confidence.
To look at the meta skills, (or higher levbel thinking skills) proposed, click on this link