Choosing a Methodology 1 Considerations

Through our examination of constructivism in music education, and within digitally- augmented learning environments, we have arrived at a set of initial design principles (see 3.4). It is important to clarify that in this context of instructional design, we are concerned not just with the production of a software artefact, but also a consideration of how this can be applied in a music lesson, the cognitive and social dynamics of such application, and its place within a wider framework of class and curriculum. Jonassen (1999, p.222) discusses this kind of constructivist design as defining a ‘problem manipulation space [which] provides the objects, signs, and tools required for the learner to manipulate the environment’ as learners ‘cannot assume any ownership of the problem unless they know that they can affect the

problem situation in some meaningful way.’ This further illustrates the definition of sandbox

as it is used in this thesis; a space for creative ownership over the problem itself as well as its solution, such that the outcomes are intrinsically relevant or valuable to the learner. Such a

space must also employ what Jonassen (1999, p.222) terms authentic representation or that

which is ‘personally relevant or interesting to the learner’, akin to the capacity for personal

identification Papert describes in his objects-to-think-with (see 2.1.4). This is an important form of scaffolding, as it helps the learner to engage from the point of first use by building upon their existing comprehension.

This project requires a design methodology that will allow us to address these

considerations. Methodologies for design and development, for software but also as a general rule, can be categorised as either top-down (starting with the goal design and then refining the constituent details) or bottom-up (an emergent process of piecing together from developing components). This model can also be applied to instructional design; Borgo (2007, pp.85-6) refers to this dichotomy when comparing rote-learning of musical concepts with discovery by improvisation and experiential learning:

Complicated systems tend to involve a top-down model of organization that requires a strict hierarchy and the unerring execution of many sequential operations… Complex systems, by contrast, tend to involve bottom-up or ‘self-organizing’ dynamics that rely on extensive communication throughout a network of highly interconnected

65 parts… In short, complex systems can produce ‘emergent’ behaviours; they offer the possibility for surprise.

The constructivist orientation of this research project aligns it with the idea of complex systems, or bottom-up design. We have a set of considerations, principles and initial target outcomes, which we will bring together and measure in a learning context, to achieve equilibrium between these component ideas and thus produce a meaningful solution.

4.1.2 Software Development as Educational Research

Reflecting on the developmental process of jam2jam (see 2.2.3), Brown (2007a, p.4)

proposes a methodological model which ‘is concerned with deliberately employing designed systems that embody a hypothesis about educative experiences, in order to illicit new

research findings.’ Software Development as Educational Research (SoDaR) situates software design in a context of constructivist educational research (see Brown 2012), an iterative process which draws directly from student experience and learning outcomes. The methodology aligns with complex system design, recognising the validity of emergent

behaviours and rejecting the notion of absolute faithfulness to the initial design specifications present in top-down models:

An important SoDaR feature should be the maintenance of a healthy skepticism about the degree of control the researcher has over outcomes. In this way control is

understood as improvisation rather than direction and there should be a view to generating knowledge by capturing the opportunities that arise…

(p.10)

This sensitivity to learning opportunities comes from testing and developing the resource in

an experiential and educational setting15.

Brown defines the approach as having three stages, and suggests possible research questions for each stage:

15_{Brown (2007a, p.10) notes how the text messaging component of jam2jam became a prominent design feature}

66 Stage 1: Define the activity

 How will the activity lead to the desired learning outcomes?

 What educational value would be provided by the software?

 Why is software the best medium for providing this experience?

 Is the activity described at an appropriate level of detail?

Stage 2: Software Design and Production

 What data structure best supports (technically and pedagogically) the domain

knowledge being represented?

 How does each software feature reinforce the design objective?

 What software platform will best enable production and deployment?

 Has the design and production process limited or expanded the educational

implications?

Stage 3: Usage and Refinement

 Are the activity and software mutually reinforcing?

 What are the differences between the expected and actual behaviour of the

students?

 How can the software and its use be improved?

 Are the students achieving the desired learning outcomes?

(Brown 2007a, pp.5-7)

This can be characterised as a qualitative research process which seeks to determine specific added value from the application of developing software in educational settings. Being situated in and emerging from particular environments and contexts, SoDaR is undertaken with an interpretivist perspective that the experience of individuals and the influence of their surround should be evaluated:

Research findings generated using the SoDaR approach are limited to the studied contexts in the same way as other methods used within qualitative research studies. While this can be alleviated somewhat by studying multiple sites or classes,

generalizations should be made with caution and context dependency taken in to account.

67 The process has clear links to action research in education (see Mills 2000; Carr & Kemmis 2003). The working environment, in this context, may be taken to be the school environment or the virtual environment. Receptiveness to unforeseen possibilities is emphasised within the SoDaR method (Brown 2007a, p.10). Though generalisations are to be viewed with caution, significant results demand further examination and should be presented in context. This is in line with Bassey’s recommendations regarding ‘fuzzy’ generalisations (1998; 2001).

4.1.3 Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a research methodology originally proposed by Glaser and Strauss (2017) which has been described as compatible with the constructivist ontology (see Charmaz 2014;

Mills et al. 2006) and the work of educational practitioners, among other social fields. As the

grounded theory researcher collects data, often supported by the writing of memos, they look for codes, or recurring units of qualitative data (words, ideas, etc.), which form concepts.

These are then grouped into categories, from which the theory ultimately emerges

(Breckenridge et al. 2012). Due to the exploratory and flexible nature of grounded theory, a

number of variations have been proposed. For Glaser (1992), an emergent approach,

characterised by an essentially consistent application of coding methods at micro and macro

levels of analysis, is favoured. This argument is made in his Basics of Grounded Theory

Analysis, a response to the methods elaborated by Strauss (1988). Charmaz (2000) proposes that the grounded theory researcher acknowledge and examine his or her own perceptions to mitigate bias. Glaser (2002) argues that pattern received by the researcher, and resultant theory, are all part of the data and methodological process.

4.1.4 Mixed Methodology

SoDaR is a suitable model for this project, but also one which was only recently proposed, and which has not undergone substantial testing. I therefore decided to base my practical research model on SoDaR, but to combine this with grounded theory. This serves two purposes:

1. This research is practice-led, and therefore has two main outputs; a practical output –

in this case, the software artefact – and also a theoretical output emerging from the application and examination of this practice. While SoDaR enables me to produce the

68 practical output, this requires support from a more theory-oriented methodology to analyse and comment upon the process. The combination of these methods therefore allows me to fulfil both aims.

2. Again, because I wish to comment upon my practice, grounded theory allows me to

step back and review the process at every stage, including critical analysis of the methodology itself. I can therefore analyse in turn the effectiveness of this methodological approach.

By combining SoDaR with the analytical coding methods of grounded theory, I aimed to follow a complex system of design that is responsive to emergence and inclusive of the interconnected considerations of software development, musical creativity, and educational practice.

4.2 Research Tools