Collaborative action research through technologically mediated agoras

Abstract The study presented in this article forms part of a wider project promoting collaboration between junior researchers from different universities with the objective of rethinking and improving teaching practice in relation to the use of technology. The article describes research carried out during the 2012/13 academic year aimed at developing collaborative action research through technologically mediated agoras involving students from three Spanish universities. The main results of this study show that junior researchers improved their teaching practice through technologically mediated inside and outside agoras. In addition, the transformation of university classrooms into agoras enabled the negotiated reconstruction of knowledge for the analysis of good practice in the use of technology. Likewise, these agoras helped reduce limitations by breaking down the barriers of time, distance and resources for sharing findings and limitations between junior researchers. Furthermore, they pave the way for improvements and their implementation in learning processes during initial teacher training.


Introduction
Our training as junior researchers, belonging to the Educational Technology University Network (RUTE in Spanish), has enabled us to encourage the questioning of teaching practice and adopt a critical approach to the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in university classrooms. Primarily, this network seeks to look beyond the mere integration of technology into classrooms without question, with the aim of encouraging the transformation of teaching practice through sharing concerns and research experiences in annual meetings. In addition, it encourages research on improving initial and ongoing teacher training in the use of technology, analyzing the impact of educational policy in Spain. Within the framework of this network we were granted a subsidy in 2012 for our research project focused on the improvement of university teaching through the use of ICT. This work context has led to further training in research methods of three teachers from the different Spanish ABSTRACT The study presented in this article forms part of a wider project promoting collaboration between junior researchers from different universities with the objective of rethinking and improving teaching practice in relation to the use of technology. The article describes research carried out during the 2012/13 academic year aimed at developing collaborative action research through technologically mediated agoras involving students from three Spanish universities.
The main results of this study show that junior researchers improved their teaching practice through technologically mediated inside and outside agoras. In addition, the transformation of university classrooms into agoras enabled the negotiated reconstruction of knowledge for the analysis of good practice in the use of technology. Likewise, these agoras helped reduce limitations by breaking down the barriers of time, distance and resources for sharing findings and limitations between junior researchers. Furthermore, they pave the way for improvements and their implementation in learning processes during initial teacher training. universities that participated in this project: the University of Cantabria, the University of the Basque Country and the University of Extremadura.
The Educational Technology University Network has provided us with the ideal circumstances for collaborating and strengthening professional relationships in our process of improving teaching and research. as a result, we have been able to develop action research aimed at generating a work context for promoting the exchange of experiences between junior researchers from different universities and for sharing our thinking on the use of ICT. The main points that form the basis of our action research are described in the following.
Firstly, our project arose from the need to start a process of teacher collaboration in relation to the design, development and assessment of principles of procedure in the use of technology in university classrooms, responsible for guiding and transforming the actions of the university teachers involved. Within an action research framework, taking into account the substantial contributions with regards to the teacher as a researcher (Carr 1980(Carr , 1986(Carr , 1987(Carr , 2005Elliott 1987Elliott , 2009Stenhouse 1975Stenhouse , 1985, principles of procedure constitute an alternative option from a reductionist view of a teaching model driven by the achievement of objectives focused on the academic performance of students. Through the establishment of principles of procedure, teachers can specify educational objectives with an emphasis on action derived from reflection on practice. Principles of procedure are not learning objectives given that they are formulated by teachers in attempt to be both clarifying and reflective; in other words, they are not formulated by an external body unrelated to teaching. In addition, theoretical principles and interrelated practices are formulated and revised in depth, thereby establishing value criteria and options with regard to teaching practice (James 2012). Thus the emphasis of these depends more on the actions of the teacher than on the achievements of their students.
The adoption of shared principles of procedure in the use of technology in our classrooms would allow us to guide educational practice and lay the foundations for collaboration on the innovative use of ICT in university teaching. however, a problem exists in that the mere use of technology in the classroom does not necessarily lead to innovation but instead reinforces the teaching-learning model that underlies educational practices. as demonstrated in previous studies (Fernández-Díaz, Calvo and Rodríguez-hoyos 2014), despite expectations generated in relation to the transformational potential of technology, international and national research carried out in this area shows that the widespread use of ICT in schools has not led to significant changes in teaching practices (area et al. 2014;Law, Pelgrum, and Plomp 2008;Law, Yuen, and Fox 2011;Sancho and Correa 2010;Sola and Murillo 2011). It is important to encourage the review and questioning of teaching practice with regard to introducing improvements, avoiding the passive adoption of externally imposed models. Teachers should be given the lead role in the management and administration of this change.
In our establishment of the principles of procedure, we consider it a priority to chart a course so that students can be trained from a critical perspective of the use of ICT, optimizing channels of communication as well as the relations between different agents and contexts. Therefore, it is necessary to point out that the use of the different tools selected (social network systems, blogs), described in the next section, follow a theoretical model in order to optimize the relationship between these contexts. In contrast, a reductionist point of view of technology aims to divert attention away from technological aspects to focus more on pedagogic concerns related to the use of technology (Gao, Luo, and zhang 2012;Manca and Ranierit 2013).
as teachers, we are seeking to generate a context of reflection on the use of ICT in university classrooms, questioning the functionality of experiences and the role of tools in the critical multi-literacy of students; that is, we want to give students the ability to interpret information critically as well as produce it creatively in a technologically mediated context. This implies creating learning environments where the activity of the participants as providers of information in multiple languages such as sound or vision is promoted. Thus we provide opportunities for them to manage critically and independently in the society in which they are immersed (Cloutier 2010;Gutiérrez Martín 2008;Somekh 2007).
Secondly, in our project we have made a commitment to improving the dynamic reconstruction of knowledge as well as increasing the openness of our own classrooms through the setting up of agoras. From a critical curricular perspective, where the contextualization and functionality of educational experiences are given priority, we proposed the creation of agoras or debates in which students must externalize their implicit ideas on educational innovation, take decisions to challenge their views and substantiate their arguments on the basis of the documentation produced (Wang, Bruce, and hughes 2011). Setting up agoras enables the start of a process of transforming the university classroom into a meeting place based on equality for discussing problems and resistance to change in the school. In addition to setting up agoras we sought to move into different scenarios in order to encourage an interrelationship between educational contexts as a result of technological mediation.
aware of the need to bring educational practice closer to students, we prioritized conducting debates in the classroom focused on real experience and research in order to encourage participants to question current teaching methods. It was considered that the use of ICT in classrooms offered the best context for reviewing the research role of teachers and the development of good practice: those initiatives that appeared capable of providing a different way of thinking and proceeding in order to improve creativity, flexibility and cooperation in curriculum development (Landow 2002). Likewise, these debates could provide an excellent opportunity for promoting links between initial and ongoing teacher training. In short, with the generation of these spaces we are seeking to establish a suitable context, not only for enabling the transformation of our university teaching practice and the improvement of our students' learning experience but also for the generation of knowledge in the course of the designed actions (Denzin 2006).

Aims
In our action research the following objectives were defined: • To reflect on the role of ICT in university teaching, through a process of shared design based on common principles of procedure in the use of technology. • To share spaces so that students can debate on good practice in relation to the integration of technologies, transforming university classrooms into agoras. • To improve the process of collaboration between participants.

Context and phases of the action research
This project has arisen from the need to generate and consolidate a work context aimed at encouraging the sharing of experiences between junior researchers from different universities. In 2012, the Educational Technology University Network granted us a subsidy for a research project for reflecting on the improvement of university teaching through the use of ICT. Thus, we began a process of collaborative action research in which we are currently involved. however, although this process takes place over two phases, this article presents the results analyzed so far, corresponding to phase I (first phase).
The first phase was developed during the 2012/13 academic year in the Schools of Education in the University of Extremadura, the University of the Basque Country and the University of Cantabria. Three teachers from the area of Didactics and School Organization from three Spanish universities participated in this study together with their pre-school and primary education students who were studying different subjects.
The participating students were different in the two semesters, and therefore we refer to a fairly large sample in relation to: their experience at university (first-year or second-year students), the course they were studying (pre-school or primary education) and the subjects involved in their studies. although the initial sample of participating students was high (first semester, 230 students; and second semester, 354 students), it was considered that student collaboration could be voluntary in some activities while in others it would be compulsory. The difference between participating or not in the proposed activities depended on accessibility to social network systems outside a formal or academic context. The design synthesis of the phases and the context of the research are shown in Figure 1. Likewise, this figure shows the stages that will be described in detail in the next section (planning the action, implementing the plan, review and expansion stage).

Data generation and collection
Various methods related to the concept of technologically mediated qualitative methodology were used for data generation and collection. On the one hand, e-research methods were used by our students for data collection, such as tracking blogs and the observation of multi-media activities. In addition, face-to-face discussion groups took place at the end of the academic year with the aim of analyzing, evaluating and assessing the experience. Students who had been especially involved in the collaborative tasks with their peers, from other universities or external assemblies, participated in these discussion groups, as will be explained in the following section. On the other hand, for data collection on the process of reflection by teachers we mainly used observation of our activities in the classroom, the analysis of documents generated in different phases of the process and focus groups which took place synchronously using both face-to-face and online meetings through video conferences as well as asynchronous meetings through forum discussions. a description of the tools used for the generation and collection of information is included in Figure 2.

Data analysis
Categorization was carried out deductively following experimentation and the development of activities based on the categories defined in the face-to-face meeting (shown in Figure 2). Briefly, the following categories were proposed for further analysis: • Critical multi-literacy: the ability to use different tools to analyze and produce information independently, creatively and critically in the social context of reference (Gutiérrez Martín and Tyner 2012; Kendall and McDougall 2012). • Collaborative work: this refers to group autonomy and maturity in relation to the different activities carried out; it also covers the analysis of aspects related to time  management, positive interdependence and group cohesion (Johnson and Johnson 2004;Kagan 1994). • Construction of knowledge: aspects such as pre-conceptualization, awareness of their learning process, learning experiences, level of in-depth study, the dissemination of knowledge (with spontaneous and guided proposals) and the extrapolation of knowledge are considered fundamental for the analysis of the construction of knowledge (Wang 2007; Wang, Bruce, and hughes 2011). • Pedagogical relationship: in university and non-university educational contexts characterized by multidirectional interaction which is increasingly horizontal, the pedagogical relationship between student and teacher needs to be analyzed in order to encourage innovation in teaching ( It should be noted that the first four categories are related to practices designed by teachers and their impact on the experience of students. We consider the last two to be exclusively related to the work carried out by teachers in relation to the general project and to some of the aims of the research. In this article we have focused on the analysis of the categories directly related to improving action research; in other words, to improving the reflection of the teachers involved and the process of transforming their own practice.

Reflection on the action research process
The analysis and results obtained from our research are directly related to the stages and activities developed during the academic year. In the following section each of these stages will be explained in detail with an analysis of the activities developed as well as the use of tools in each one, reflecting on the process of transforming the practice of junior researchers.

Planning the action
Our starting point was shared reflection on the use of ICT in university teaching. In planning the process of collaboration, based on the theoretical foundations established in the previous section, we began the process of sharing and analyzing existing good practice with the aim of questioning teaching methods through a technologically mediated process using different languages and media. Firstly, we began with the creation of a website to facilitate sharing information on the design of our classroom practices, the project initially negotiated, the literature review and the analysis of good practice mentioned earlier. We also identified the need to complement this static tool with a dynamic tool which would facilitate communication between junior researchers. For this we chose the use of a forum as a place for designing activities through negotiation, reflecting on the obstacles and difficulties identified in process monitoring meetings as well as the experience of collaborative work between our students.
Once the areas of exchange had been defined we embarked on a process of reflection on the use of technology in the classroom in relation to some principles of procedure, with the aim of guiding and transforming our teaching practice. To this end, individual reflection and further online discussion took place to jointly negotiate our role as facilitators of student learning in general, and more specifically as mediators of the critical vision on the use of ICT in particular. Our initial reflections were aimed at explaining the essence of a critical approach which would enable us to guide the process of change: how can the use of technology be improved? What areas and tools can we use to transform our classrooms? how can we break down classroom barriers and expand into other contexts? In short, it related to a common consensus framework which would guide our collaborative process of transforming technologically mediated teaching practice, as demonstrated in the following example where junior researchers (named in the quotations as R1, R2 and R3) discuss the formulation of the principles of procedure: R1: We could tell students to collect information on what they consider to be good practice, in order for them to tell us about good practices they experienced during their period of compulsory schooling […] we could think about establishing a principle of procedure in the following way, for example: In the classroom together with students, we will rebuild knowledge about technology in teaching, thereby creating common meanings.
R2: I′m not sure. I think it's a bit abstract, maybe we should be more specific about the principle, we should mention that it will be about good practice. What do you think? (Forum discussion transcript, 19 September 2012) Following initial discussion about the principles of procedure, we wrote a progress report in order to outline the framework of action based on shared, critical and creative views on the use of technology in teaching and research. This common framework for action allowed us to outline a common way forward; we agreed to introduce reflection on practice through monitoring determined actions and questioning the role of technology in the transformation and improvement of our performance in the classroom. The use of ICT and the integration of this into teaching as part of the process of educational innovation require research and the analysis of tools and practices. Therefore it is essential to be able to design and experiment with activities which serve to help not only students but also teachers in order to direct the process of improvement appropriately. The results of our reflection on principles of procedure (in italics) are summarized in the following: • There will be a shared critical vision on the use of technology which must permeate inter-university collaboration. This enables practice in university classrooms capable of exercising understanding, reflection and communication using different languages and media, thereby contributing to the multi-literacy of students. • Knowledge will be rebuilt jointly with students creating common meanings through shared areas of analysis of good practice, providing new ways of thinking and acting. We will try to break down the barriers of the university classroom to enrich experiences in relation to technological mediation. In this regard we will be able to jointly reconstruct our subjects through dialogical action. • Bridges will be built between universities and schools and between educational theory and practice. This means prioritizing activities so that students can explore the relevance of the research in teaching performance through the use of ICT. The participation of teachers from different levels of education and from different geographical contexts will be encouraged. • Expansion, mixing contexts and the dissemination of experience will be pursued. The dissemination of our experience should be established as a first step for promoting the expansion of our project; we need to strengthen the foundations for an inter-university learning network sustainable over time by increasing participation.

Implementing the plan
The planning stage was concluded with the design of agoras as areas to be reinvented in each university classroom, to enable the transformation of the normal dynamics of the oneway transmission of knowledge in university classrooms through the use of technology, diversifying the arrangement of working areas and enriching the exchange of knowledge between participating universities. The work forums from our online scenario were used to implement dialogic action, where varying levels of depth of content in relation to the practices analyzed were produced. at the same time these forums enabled both the transmission of the collection and analysis of information as well as the introduction of appropriate adjustments in the design. This can be seen in the following quotation, where one of the junior researchers reflects on the need to introduce modifications in the use of the forum in order to improve data generation and collection according to the type of agora which has taken place: R1: If you agree, we'll leave the other topic for 'inside agoras' , that is, the collection of experiences that we have in class, and we'll use this new line of conversation for the 'external agoras' , in other words, what we are going to share externally both in the long and short term. We had considered the possibility of creating an area for exchanging good practice in the use of ICT among our students […] (Forum discussion transcript, 14 October 2012)

Inside agoras
During the first semester we held what we call inside agoras. Following the individual review of the subject contents by students, we encouraged joint decision-making in small groups and, subsequently, combined the group-class through collective assemblies. Basically through carrying out these debates, enriched by the use of ICT, we achieved the negotiated reconstruction of knowledge. Thus we managed to convert the classroom into a laboratory of confrontation of perspectives in order to reflect on subject contents; that is, we created agoras to explore intuitive knowledge or student experiences related to good practice in education. Furthermore, the inside agoras -as practices designed in each university classroomincluded technologically mediated activities developed individually in this university classroom; for example Twitter, following the viewing of films or the preparation of e-portfolios for the purpose of sharing discussion on the evidence of learning over the course of the subject.
Nevertheless, reflection on the design and development of the activity was shared by junior researchers as a result of the dialogic action of the forums, so that collaboratively and beyond the context of the classroom the improvements could be identified. It is important to point out the fruitful support process and improvement between teachers participating in the experience. The dialogic action of the forums enabled rebuilding and enhancing individual experiences, as well as overcoming difficult moments. In short, although the agoras took place in one university classroom, they were echoed and improved thanks to our joint reflection in the forum. In the following quotation a junior researcher (R1) shares their reflections on the educational meaning of an activity carried out in the classroom in order to encourage the identification of different curricular approaches in educational practice and analyze the option of a critical curricular focus. The participation of other junior researchers (R2 and R3) enables the reconstruction of the meaning of the activity, as can be seen in the following extract: R1: We had arranged to share reflections about curricular approaches to the film 'It all starts today' (Tavernier 1999) via twitter, but then I had some doubts, to the point where I decided to completely stop before launching the activity. a lot of the students told me that the film was too slow, that it had been really boring … so I stopped because the idea of leaving a negative footprint on-line with negative comments like that … I feel blocked and haven't been able to find a solution yet … Do you think I should restart? Now we are in the final stages, summarizing … could we reconsider it?

R2: It's a good idea to stop and think about what we are doing, what our objective is […]
We need to take into account that we are using twitter in an educational and innovative way for most of our students, so we have to get used to this educational use and above all focus participation on recreating critically.
R3: I agree with R2 on the need to explain the potential this tool has for creating, sharing and distributing knowledge and information; show them networks and professional educational groups that learn and exchange on-line. Greetings and let's carry on! (Forum discussion transcript, 10 December 2012)

Outside agoras
During the second semester what we call outside agoras were developed: discussion areas for inter-group participation -that is, between students from participating universitiesjointly beyond the activities proposed in each university classroom, either synchronously or asynchronously. Joint reflection on development through the face-to-face focus group via video conferences enabled us to share the main difficulties encountered in this development, as well as to adapt our wide-ranging aims and expectations to time constraints. But, above all, it enabled us to divert attention away from technology to focus more on how to improve our own performance to ensure that a critical view of technology would be transferred to students. It was necessary to emphasize their research role as future teachers, questioning the underlying focus on practices or on actions to be carried out in the short term, in order to encourage curricular development or innovation. One researcher (R3) referred to their critical perspective, reflecting on outside agoras in the forums: R3: […] some of the contributions were repeated and I noticed that many students go along with the same thing and tweet about what they hear or understand. That is, not many students read or offer other types of comments or even ask questions. (Forum discussion transcript, 13 March 2013) On the one hand, some of the outside agoras devised arose from exchanges between the agoras which took place internally in the remaining universities participating in the project. This related to the search for the echo of the activity initially devised internally, replicating experiences in order to see the effects on other university contexts and thus contributing to providing greater depth to the debate as well as increasing the resonance and participation initially obtained with regard to this, as the following quotation demonstrates.
R3: To finish the week, I received some really good news on entering the classroom. In my class three of the groups had already received comments from yours, R2: one group had received 14 comments and another is still waiting because they haven't received anything yet and they are really worried about it. (Forum discussion transcript, 14 april 2013) On the other hand, external agoras were developed beyond the context of the university, encouraging openness in university spaces and their relationship to the reality of schools. as we advanced, we felt the need to incorporate other voices into the classroom and we began the analysis of educational practices outside the context of university classrooms where students could discuss the underlying problems related to these practices, thus contributing to the dissemination and use of good practice or innovative educational experiences in schools and experimentation with the teacher researcher role. Beyond the mere use of technological tools, as we will demonstrate in the following section, it is important to point out the implications of shared reviewing and monitoring in the transformation of our individual practices as well as the evolution and improvement of our process of collaboration.

Review and expansion stage
The primary objective of the dissemination phase was to rethink the role of ICT in our process of collaboration, transformation and improvement of practice and its role in continuous reflection on action. In addition, the process of expansion towards other scenarios and contexts, awareness of the difficulties and improvements to be developed for the new cycle of action should also be highlighted in its development, through forum discussion: a significant milestone in this phase was the setting up of a face-to-face meeting to enable the generation of a scenario which goes further than the potential of ICT in teacher collaboration. It reflected on all the experiences, individual conflicts and dilemmas of the university environment together with our situation as junior researchers using a technologically unmediated area as a setting for this. We also reviewed the possible scenarios and communities of practice where we could share our experiences with the aim of disseminating the findings together with the experience of the innovation developed through the project. In the process of decision-making, the limitations of junior researchers in disseminating knowledge became apparent. While experiencing the need to share and expand, the constraints of the Spanish university system in relation to methods of accreditation or the internal promotion of junior researchers prevents us from disseminating our experience without securing recognition through publications. as some research and studies in Spain demonstrate, while the production of knowledge is common in a competitive context it is not always possible in a collaborative one (De la herrán and Paredes 2012;Escudero, Pino, and Rodríguez Fernández 2010). Nevertheless, our commitment to expanding our network in order to nurture sharing experience, advancing and improving in collaboration with others has led us to prioritize the need for openness and visualization in an online setting. Furthermore, as we progress in the process of diffusion we continue to share our achievements, findings and controversies in wider contexts such as the Spanish network we belong to.
Finally, we took advantage of these meetings in order to outline the foundations for the next cycle of action, based on identifying the main difficulties of the process as will be explained in the following section.

Findings and limitations
action developed jointly has made furthering the objectives of the research possible.
Firstly, it was necessary to negotiate a starting point so that the action designed would be based on theories and broader pedagogic ideas with the ultimate aim of being able to generate knowledge based on reflection on action. Establishing principles of procedure has enabled us to start from a joint review of the role of ICT in the transformation and improvement of our teaching. The results of our research demonstrate how experiences are articulated using our own practice as a focal point for reflection as well as the use of technology in initial teacher training in other university contexts. Thus we have succeeded in prioritizing a common vision of the selection of some tools accompanying, from a critical perspective, the exchanges, reflection, contact and distribution of information by students who participated in this experience (ampartzaki et al. 2013). This has enriched their learning process both as future teachers and as students. In addition to experiencing in the first person the benefits of collaborating with others first hand, despite distances and different personal and cultural situations, this shared vision has enabled them to find a model of technologically mediated collaborative reflection among university teachers (Selwood and Twining 2005;Twining et al. 2013).
Secondly, we have succeeded in developing a scenario for carrying out research by rethinking the university classroom, generating agoras or practices through the use of ICT for the analysis of good practice in the use of ICT. Collaboration between teachers has enabled the design of training activities with the aim of innovation in teaching methodology generating and experimenting with new curricular formulas and methodologies (Landow 2002).
We believe it is necessary to experience the use of technology as a means of encouraging the transformation of university classrooms, diversifying groups and promoting openness. On the one hand, the exchange of practices generated has enabled shared reflection on the improvement of our own teaching. On the other, we have succeeded in opening the classroom to other university classrooms, and encouraging the questioning of standardized models of teaching where textbooks orchestrate the submission of teachers and in which the divergence of organizational models of school reality or establishing different models between knowledge and subjects is hardly accommodated (Pérez-Gómez et al. 2009;Prieto Santos et al. 2011). Thus we have sought continuity and extra-polarity with curricular activities in different university contexts, taking advantage of the work carried out by students to design good practice as a basis for methodological innovation in university teaching. This good practice accompanied by ICT has been focused at all times on improving teaching and learning by students.
Finally, we have succeeded in making a firm commitment to joint collaboration as junior researchers in order to consolidate an inter-university community of practice in the future, with the objective of making contributions based on the transformation of our own practice. action research is an effective professional development strategy for collaboration and networking (Salm 2013;zehetmeier et al. 2015). Initially we have been able to critically review the process together with other external networks, as a result of participation in wider contexts, in our attempt to increase collaboration and dissemination of knowledge. although there is still a long way to go, we have tried to reflect on the controversies inherent in these processes (DePalma and Teague 2008; Genevieve and Thomas-Spiegel 2013;herr and anderson 2005;Somekh and zeichner 2009).
Nevertheless, the review process enables us to identify the main difficulties encountered in establishing our design. as demonstrated in previous studies (Goh and Loh 2013;Kim 2013;Sherab 2013), collaboration between students has enhanced the exchange of ideas, experiences and concerns, but not so much with regard to an in-depth debate of these ideas or concepts in the search for meaning and the joint construction of knowledge. In addition to the main difficulties identified, together with resistance to changing the way of working as a group, we found an excessive overload of tools which have contributed to dispersing students. Therefore, we believe that based on this first experience between ourselves as teachers and groups of students, the analysis of our educational models, planning the design of activities and the collaborative learning environment need to be improved.
Together with the difficulties encountered in the process of technological mediation, we detected the need to methodologically redesign our work environment in order to distance ourselves from the excessive secrecy and rigidity of previous planning cycles. Practices or work environments should not be designed like puzzles so that each piece fits into place perfectly because this implies that we already have a final picture in mind, a given answer, a carefully created route. On the contrary, we want to redefine collaboration and find a way so that pieces fit together through a negotiated process involving the participants because interests should be shared jointly and not imposed from outside (Cook 2014). In this way we will be able to progress and pave the way for new spaces for collaboration capable of promoting pedagogic events open to the uniqueness of what happens, fuelled by surprise and uncertainty in their own working context (atkinson 2012).
Ultimately, we will continue to question ourselves on this new way forward with regard to enabling processes of change to take place, encouraging inter-university collaboration where possible. Thus we will create a hotbed for developing ideas concerning how and why we should share in the pursuit of our teaching model through the process of action research.