Mick Healey will give a keynote at I-MELT, December 2017

Emeritus Professor Mick Healey will be giving a Keynote address at I-MELT– the International Conference on Engaged Learning and Teaching. Mick has a strong research interest in Engaging Students as partners, including in all forms of undergraduate research and inquiry.

I-MELT will provide an opportunity for academic, professional and sessional staff and students to share a conceptualisation in common around contemporary issues facing teaching and learning. The concept in common will be the inter-related Models of Engaged Learning and Teaching, including:

  • The Research Skill Development framework (RSD)
  • The Work Skill Development framework (WSD)
  • The Clinical Reflection Skills Framework (CRS)
  • The Optimising Problem Solving pentagon (OPS)
  • The Critical Thinking pentagon (CT)
  • The Researcher Development framework (RSD7)
  • and Research Mountain (for Early Childhood)

The conference runs 4-6 December 2017. Details, including themes and other key dates are at www.i-melt.edu.au

Hope you can make it



On behalf of the I-MELT Organising Committee

RSD Masterclass on Engaged Learning and Teaching (MELT)

For those colleagues who are attending the Monash University RSD MELT, please share with us your experiences related to the following questions, in advance of the workshop:

  1. What is your favourite way of introducing RSD facets? Why this way?
  2. Have you introduced ‘autonomy’ of the RSD framework to any audience?  If so, how did you do this? If not, maybe give us an idea of whether it was not relevant, not possible, or something else.
  3. Have you had any surprises in your use of the RSD?

Scroll down to ‘Leave a Reply’.

I look forward to seeing you on the 24th!

John W


A metaphoric framework: a basis of the RSD

The Research Skill Development (www.rsd.edu.au) framework is underpinned by a three metaphors that comprise a metaphoric framework.

The attached powerpoint A metaphoric framework for analysis gives a very brief overview of the metaphoric framework. If you attended the session on ‘Why use a metaphoric framework for analysis?‘ you might answer this question in the comment field:

  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of a metaphorical framework in your research context?


I-MELT RSD: International conference on Mobilising Engaged Learning and Teaching (MELT)- December 2017 Adelaide

The Research Skill Development (RSD) conference will bring together those with a passion for developing students’ research, problem solving, critical thinking and clinical reasoning skills. The conference will draw on the development and use of the skills that are articulated in the MELT (Models of Engaged Learning and Teaching) family of frameworks, such as the RSD framework, The Work Skill Development Framework (WSD), the Clinical Reasoning Skill (CRS) framework and the Optimising Problem Solving (OPS) pentagon.

The RSD MELT conference will be held at the Adelaide Wine Centre, 4 to 6 December 2017.

A call for abstracts will be made in October 2016, and the abstracts will be due in May 2017, with notifications about success in June. Abstracts will need to draw on the RSD framework or, especially adaptations of it. An abstract may focus on:

  • The use of the RSD and evaluation of outcomes for students
  • Adaptation of the RSD for specific purposes.
  • Critiques of the RSD, whether theoretical or practical.
  • Use and evaluation of the WSD, OPS or CRS with students and teaching staff.

Monday 4 December will comprise 3 hour workshops, each introduced by a speedy presentation (a Pecha Kucha) to help your informed choice.

Tuesday 5th and Wednesday 6th December will have keynotes and 3ominute presentations.

Subsequent to the conference, we hope some presenters may develop their ideas into a full paper for a special issue of a yet-to-be named journal.

We will have keynote speakers who are not the usual suspects, including:

Associate Professor Jito Vanualailai, Director of the Research Office at the University of the South Pacific. Jito will give us a whole-institution look at the use of the Research Skill Development framework across degree programs, that was driven by the needs of the pacific island peoples. The initiative to use the RSD commenced with core general skill courses in 2012, progressively rolled out through discipline-specific courses in the First, Second and Third Years of all undergraduate programs, and is currently being developed at Masters level.

Associate Professor Sylvia Tiala, School of Education, University of Wiconsin Stout. Sylvia will inform us about the RSD community of Practice that she leads with other colleagues at the university. Based on a handbook developed by the University of the South pacific, Sylvia and the team adapted this for the Wisconsin context.

If you live on the equator, USA or Europe, come and visit Australia’s biggest wine growing region in early summer ; you may MELT, but you wont be too hot.


for the Organising Committee

Said Al-Sarawi- STEM

Nayana Parange- Health Sciences

Lyn Torres-Library and Student support

John Willison- Arts, Professions and Education









Challenging Assumptions about Content Knowledge

Recently, I started one of my classes  with a simple question, “Should general education courses be required”.  It was a strategy to get my students actively engaged in a discussion about the value and merit of general education courses.  It was my alternative to the traditional introduction to the course which in many general education courses goes something like: 1. Welcome to XXXX  2.  The purpose of the course is XXXX  3.  It is important because XXXX.

The discussion was a success!  Students were actively engaged in the discussion about the merits of general education and were able to argue, at  a very shallow level, about why general education was/was beneficial.  But, I was horrified at one of the very serious justifications from one student.  “No, general education should not be required because everything I need to know I can learn from my cell phone.”

Right then and there I started working to revise many of the assignments in my class.  It wasn’t about revising the course’s content.  It was about revising the course to get my students to actively engage and think about the content.  I was further inspired by the fact that I was in a learning community that was discussing  Brookfield, S. (2012).  Teaching for critical thinking. San Francisco, CA ISBN-13: 978-0470889343/ISBN-10: 0470889349.

Brookfield spends some time talking about assumptions. So, let me challenge three assumptions I see in the idea that content isn’t addressed in the RSD framework:

  1.  There is an implied assumption that the RSD framework is responsible for content acquisition.  I suggest that it is the instructor’s responsibility to provide a minimal amount of content upon which students can then expand upon and integrate. Can learners do research without any content knowledge?
  2. Is the RSD really about content acquisition?  In the U.S. there is a big push for “21st century skills”.  This includes problem solving, team work, analysis, and so forth.  Is the RSD designed for content acquisition or for addressing “21st Century Skills”.
  3. Are we reaching a point in education where we are using tried and true techniques of pedagogical approaches that no longer apply to learning?  The traditional education paradigm is that professors and teachers are “gatekeepers” with access to knowledge that they can disseminate as their expertise warrants.  However, today’s learners are on the Internet learning from videos, articles, wikis, blogs, one another, by-passing us as experts.  Do pedagogical principles still apply to today’s learners or should we start to look at including some andragogical (adult learning) principles to today’s learners?

I look forward to hearing your responses relative to the Research Skill Development framework.


Alloying content acquisition and active learning: the MELT

Model for Engaged Learning and Teaching
Model for Engaged Learning and Teaching (click for full size)


One critique in the literature about the Research Skill Development (RSD) framework is that it does not explicitly include content. Recently, I trialled about 5 versions of the RSD with content-knowledge included. But no-one found it very satisfactory (eg “I had an alergic reaction to this”). So this content connection won’t go into the RSD. But I wondered if those who are more research-learning savvy don’t need the connection with content spelled out, but maybe those new to teaching (in Schools or Universities) do?

So, attached is MELT- a draft of the Model of Engaged Learning and Teaching for your comments. The first column- after the RSD facets of research- is titled ‘Acquiring knowledge’. Is this column  helpful or appropriate on a framework for active learning?

With who/where/when do you think this ‘sister framework’ of the RSD could be useful? Do you have suggestions to improve it? Leave a comment below.


The RSD paradox or RSD groups

Following on from Sylvia’s question about the last ten years we have found that the RSD framework is hard for people- educators or students- to understand the first or second time round. At the same time, the RSD articulates something that some people find illuminating, and helpful for learning, teaching and researching. And it turns out the complexity is helpful for some.

After 10 years of RSD use and evaluation we are starting to find out the difficulties that educators and students face.

What was your first encounter with the RSD like? Instant epiphany? Slow dawning? Disineterest.

What ways did you find helpful to overcome any initial barriers of understanding/applicability/implementation?

As we are starting to use reskidev to encourage sharing of RSD practice, you might not only repond to my questions, but also pose your own questions and problems with RSD use! You may get some insightful answers.

My hope is that as people begin to share their ideas/resources/questions/ problems, we see an organic and growing set of RSD resources, reviewed by colleagues, thet may eventually go oto

A perennial problem is student group work – students dont like being lumped into groups, as some bear the load and some dont contribute. Sometimes one member is too bossy and prevents the others from working or working effectively. Frequently, students are asked to assess others’ contributions, and this results in sometimes higher marks.

In the Austrlian 29/10/15 one author slammed the practice of groupwork, as inneffective.

Yet group assessmnets are often valuable as ways that students learn skills of communication, collaboration, leadership, management and to be accountable to others.

So, why dont we flip group work?: Make it more valuable if students have a dysfunctional group?

Especially early in a degree, we could ask students to focus on team processes,  identify impediments and articulate strategies that they (individually) dealt with them, as well as other processes, drafts and final product.

Why not have interim feedback from other teams that identify strengths and weaknesses according to criteria, but the allocation of marks relate to how they respond to peers, rather than what peers say. Also, the effectiveness of the feedback they give to other groups could be an assessable feature.

Maybe this needs to be more on my problems

eg At symposium, someone said ‘RSD doesn’t show groupwork’

I thought it does- ‘students’ plural. The word ‘team’ is in facets a, d,e & f.

Suggest ways to make the RSD capture a sense of team processes more clearly (without writing off individual work)

Invite people to give ideas on RSD in groupwork

RSDzone is a linkedIn group

#rsdzone for any tweets