Search results

Discovery learning, says Michael Toye, is a method of ensuring that you get the information you require when you are ready for it. If this is so, it is not difficult to see why the method proves so successful with problem groups — that is with people who, for a variety of reasons, are not at the ready when the traditional instructor might think that they were. Older trainees, for example, take longer to understand instructions or to get geared to what a lecturer is saying. They also tend to switch off from a lecture when they hear a point of particular interest, while they relate it to their own personal experience. They switch on again later, perhaps having missed some vital information. Discovery learning copes with these problems by having the information available when the learners are sufficiently alert to benefit from it.

The similarity in meaning given in general use to ‘education’ and ‘instruction’ is not apparent from their Latin roots. In practice, of course, the original distinction may not always apply: an exercise intended to be ‘education’ often becomes the learning of facts that is commonly ‘instruction’. But the intended difference is clear enough. Education involves the learner contributing significantly to his own development, even though he might be assisted by a tutor; instruction tends to be the passive reception of data and method (techniques) to meet a specific target. This difference lies behind the feeling that education is a luxury provided for the individual's own growth, whereas instruction — for economic reasons — serves only the practical necessities of a particular training situation.

Anything done by people gives rise to individual variation in its performance. For instance, rock climbing must reflect the important variations possible between all sets of arms, legs and rock faces, but we know from experience that the number of significantly different permutations and combinations of these is sufficiently small to leave us with a reasonable area of common techniques which will apply to most arms and most legs going up most rock faces. In other words the differences are overshadowed by the basic similarities. There are occasions, however, when individual aspects become so important that they modify our view about how general principles operate. This is especially true with an abstract activity such as learning — which can be something purely physical (with scarcely any conscious counterpart) or almost entirely mental. What people bring in the way of mental arms and legs to various learning situations varies so much and so subtly that we may lose confidence in the whole idea of a general technique. Perhaps there is then a special value in focusing our attention on individual differences, in the hopes that sufficient understanding of these will clarify the areas of similarity. To do this we need to find a common learning task that can be attempted by almost any individual so that we gain some perspective on whatever common principles there may be. This is exactly what we did when we sought to examine how managers learn. How would they compare with operatives? Do their activities in learning operate in totally different spheres? Would it even be POSSIBLE practically to compare them?

RESEARCH, LIKE PIG IRON, IS USEFUL STUFF IF IT IS MADE INTO useful shapes. Otherwise it just weighs a lot. One method of shaping complex material for trainees is to construct an algorithm. Here is an algorithm for the application of research findings to training design.

A Conference on Industrial Training Research was held on 15 November last, organised by the Industrial Training Research Unit jointly with the Ergonomics Research Society. The purpose was to give training officers and researchers an idea of the range and type of projects currently sponsored by the Department of Employment and some of the Industrial Training Boards. It has been decided that the best way to do this was to have several short papers rather than three or four longer and more detailed presentations.

Implicating myself in Métis scholar Natalie Clark's question “who are you and why do you care?” (2016, p. 48), this chapter traces the theorization of love in the Human Services, with a focus on the field of Child and Youth Care. I explore love as an ethical, political, and necessary force in times of ongoing colonial and state violence against Indigenous and racialized peoples (Ferguson & Toye, 2017). I go on to highlight my graduate research as a Child and Youth Care Masters student and educator, grappling with my own settler identity as a diasporic, queer, ciswoman of color, and questioning my complicity as a settler body on stolen Indigenous lands. The chapter includes vital knowledge from my research with Sisters Rising, an Indigenous-led, community-based, participatory study that uses arts-and-land-based ways of knowing to honor and uphold stories, art, and knowledge from Indigenous and racialized young peoples and communities. By tracing the reflections on decolonial love shared through Sisters Rising, I consider ways that racialized settler practitioners might engage a decolonial love ethic in praxis. Calling upon critical feminist, Indigenous, and postcolonial scholarship and brilliance, this chapter invites other settler practitioners, specifically those who identify as racialized or people of color to reckon with the intricacies of our collective complicity in notions of settler purity and apolitical practice (Shotwell, 2016). Throughout the chapter, I highlight conceptual approaches for loving politicized praxis rooted in movements toward social justice, Indigenous sovereignty-building, and decolonization.

Rural theology is explained here as a form of practical theology that seeks to interpret the rural context in the light of the central themes of Christian theology and vice versa. If Christian theology can be understood as concerning belief in God and the understanding of human relationships with God, the created order, and each other in the light of that belief, rural theology expresses that in the light of the lived experience in a rural context, which for these purposes is the daily bulletin from Ambridge. The author draws on his experience of teaching in the Cambridge Theological Federation to reflect on three recent examples: the recent changes at Brookfield in response to the perennial issue of the milk price lead us to ask who benefits from the production of higher quality food; the care for the land and Adam Macy’s reforms at Home Farm point us to issues about sustainability and responsibility; and the cohesion of a community with shared values and its treatment of Rob Titchener asks questions about the limits of inclusion. As with much practical theology, the outcome of the reflection is in ethical action and some further ethical questions, which, as the example of Jim Lloyd’s philosophical conversations with Alan Franks illustrate, are not the monopoly of the Church.

Disasters can affect the important sector of tourism across the world. This study aims to combine qualitative findings from 13 publications to enhance disaster management plans for the security and resilience of the tourist industry.

The authors used Noblit and Hare’s seven-step meta-ethnography method, identifying 13 qualitative studies on tourism disaster management through extensive searches in key databases (WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar), meeting inclusion criteria. NVivo 12 aided in coding, translation and comprehension of related ideas.

Five interrelated and third-ordered conceptual categories were identified: extreme natural and malevolent events, lack of risk management and emerg+ency response, sustainable tourism, tourism resilience factors, disaster awareness and preparedness. Effective strategies demand collaboration, resource allocation and local engagement.

This study offers a novel synthesis of qualitative research in tourism disaster management, enhancing understanding of resilience in the industry. It provides unique insights on cross-cultural dynamics, stakeholder engagement and integrated strategies while showcasing the utility of meta-ethnography in business and management research.

Examines the productivity of journals which published articles on library and information sciences on Kenya from 1961 to 1991 to determine the number of articles published by each journal, the core productive journals and authors, the language, subject and title dispersion of journals and the extent to which the journals are indexed and abstracted. The methods adopted were frequency distribution, percentages and the graphical application of Bradford′s law. Reveals that 74 journals published 414 articles on the subject. Maktaba was the most productive journal; Otike was the most productive author; dispersion of articles among journals and subjects was low; English language accounted for 95.7 per cent of the literature; indexing coverage of the journals is 39 per cent, while abstracting coverage is 44 per cent.