The IETP module consisted of 35 contact hours of teaching delivered during five classes, each class being of seven hours duration. Classes were held every two or three weeks over a 10 week period. Approximately 150 hours of self-directed study was also expected of students. The PAR process integral to stage two commenced during the first class in early October 2009 and concluded on the last day of class in December 2009. Figure 8 below (extracted from Figure 7) indicates the data sources informing this PAR process.
67
During each class the students, as co-researchers, were responsible for: a) observing their own learning which was taking place; b) reflecting on that learning; and c) based on that learning, proposing a plan of action for the next class. In this manner, they addressed the first aim of the study; that is, collaboratively developing learning opportunities for acquiring the skills necessary for locating, critiquing and translating research findings into practice within the framework of a multi-disciplinary post- qualification MSc module on EBP. The students fulfilled their co-researcher role through end-of-class NGT discussions as described below.
4.3.1 Nominal Group Technique (NGT) discussions
The NGT is considered a useful consensus method in healthcare research (Potter, Gordon & Hamer, 2004) as it provides a rapid, structured approach for collecting and organizing the thoughts of a group with the intention of arriving at a democratic decision on an issue. The iterative PAR cycles of co-constructed understandings are reflected in the four steps of the NGT which are: 1) generating ideas, 2) recording ideas, 3) clarifying ideas and 4) voting on ideas as seen in Figure 9 below.
Stage 2 Conducting the IETP module
Data generation sources informing unfolding PAR
process
Nominal group technique (NGT) discussion results
reflecting students' perspective
Non-participant observer (NPO) notes reflecting
outsider's perspective
Researcher field notes (RFN) reflecting my own
perspective
68
I acted upon the students‟ NGT-generated decisions by integrating their top two or three learning approach choices (decided by majority vote) into the subsequent class. During each class, as the students engaged in class discussions and other learning activities, they were able to observe the impact of their choices on their learning. They reflected on their current learning and which EBP skills they wanted to develop still further. They then once again made choices during that day‟s NGT discussion for the next class. In this manner, the PAR iterative cycles continued to unfold over the 10 weeks of the IETP module. The specific results of these NGT discussions, which reflected the students‟ perspective on their learning, are detailed in Chapter six. Because I facilitated the NGT discussions, the non-participant observer recorded the students‟ NGT decisions in her written notes.
Students generated, discussed and clarified
ideas for next class
By majority vote students chose EBP learning content and
activities
I integrated top 2-3 student choices into next class session During subsequent
class students observed results of their choices
on their learning Students reflected on
how their learning could best be moved
forward
69
4.3.2 Non-participant observer (NPO) notes
A second source of data was the non-participant observer (NPO) notes written during each seven hour class, as agreed by the expert panel. These notes provided an outsider‟s perspective on student class behaviours. The notes included detailed descriptions of students‟ body posture, facial expressions, levels of engagement, and brief summaries of who spoke when and to whom. The focus of the note-taking was the group dynamics during the learning and not what was said per se. Students could request to have access to these notes at any point during or after the classes, though none ever asked to do so. A university colleague, X (who is also one of my research supervisors) acted as the NPO during the first, second, fourth and fifth classes. As she had to be absent during the third class, a second colleague, Y, assumed the role of NPO. Colleague X was chosen because she and I agreed that it needed to be a person who deeply understood the aims of the research and PAR methodology. As the NPO would see and hear intimate discussions of the group (though she did not record these), we agreed that the NPO should be a person very knowledgeable about the development of the study. I briefed colleague Y on PAR methodology and she also reviewed the NPO notes of the first two classes before sitting in on the third class.
The arrangement of the classroom environment illustrates the etic (outsider) position of the NPO. The seven students were seated in a contiguous semi-circle of desks facing the front of the classroom and the whiteboard/ powerpoint screen. I sat at the left end of the semi-circle, in line with the students, so that I never had my back to any student and they all could see me clearly. The NPO was not part of the semi-circle as she sat approximately two meters from the closest student. Her desk, with a laptop computer, was placed near an electrical socket in the front of the room, to the far right of the powerpoint screen and next to the windows. Though her desk faced the students, so that all of them were within her field of vision (and she in theirs), her physically distant location and her total silence communicated that she was not a member of the group. As the NPO herself mentioned in the notes, after the first hour of the first day, the students‟ gazes were almost always directed at each other, at me or at the powerpoint screen on display; rarely at her.
70
4.3.3 Researcher field notes (RFN)
A third source of data during the conduction of the IETP module was my researcher field notes (RFN), following a format suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994). In the evening after each class, I completed a summary about the day (Appendix 12) giving my perspective. As discussed in the 4.6 stage two data handling section below, these field notes, along with the nominal group technique results and the non-participant observer notes, informed the unfolding PAR process and provided evidence of the developing partnership between myself and the student co-researchers as the partnership evolved during the IETP module.