sitting here in my colleague's - doreen's - first year confirmation seminar.
she's doing her research in the teaching of history and social studies in secondary schools in Singapore.
her data is mainly qualitative, and the methodology is divided into three phases, as are most research studies, including mine.
like suthakar's seminar, she has a separate slide on types of data collected. worth thinking about.
generally, she's very interested in teacher belief-systems and the extent to which teachers see themselves as curricular gatekeepers.
one of her concerns is how teachers conceive of what constitutes thinking historically.
by the way, the Layers of Inference framework which is often used in social studies education here in Singapore is from Claire Riley (1999).
hmm.... during the 'Q&A', once again, just as in during suthakar's, the contribution of the thesis was suggested to be made more explicit. another issue was to come up with descriptors for measuring the attainment of historical understanding. hmm... the distinction was drawn between "what is history?" and "what is historical understanding?", and how the extent to which one's historical understanding influences how history is taught. the difference between 'knowing' and 'knowing how'.