Draft Design Principles

The following are the draft design principles that were used to design the meso practice course in the Department of Social Work at the University of the Witwatersrand in 2015.

 Authentic activities provide the opportunity to collaborate

Provide opportunities for students to collaborate and share ideas and information (Lave & Wenger, 2003; Herrington et al., 2010). Encourage rapport and group cohesion, both in face-to-face and online spaces (Corey, et al., 2010; Rourke et al., 2001).

 Real world relevance

Include activities in which each of the groups of students choose a social condition from within the South African context, in which they are interested, and motivated to learn more about. In this way, the social condition is part of the current context and cultural milieu with which the students feel connected (Rule, 2006).

 Authentic activities provide the opportunity to develop skills in social work

Foster discipline-specific professional values and make use of real-world examples. Use experiential learning and role play to allow students to engage and perform in class. Students learn about meso practice while working in a group and become inducted into the profession of social work (Wenger, 2006).

72

 Authentic activities provide the opportunity to reflect

Engage students in activities that facilitate critical reflection and link this type of reflection to the discipline-specific values of being a reflective practitioner in social work. Encourage students to pay attention to both reflection in and on the process (Schön, 2011). When using deep reflection, acknowledge the role played by emotion. Create safe spaces in the learning environment.

 Authentic activities provide opportunities for creative problem-solving

Allow for problem-solving creativity and flexibility, and allow students to find their own paths to finding solutions (Herrington et al., 2010).

 Authentic activities are conducive to communication and learning

Encourage debate, articulation and role modelling by the educator and the students (Herrington et al., 2010; Wenger, 1998; Zeman & Swanke, 2008). Allow for conflict and encourage students not to take criticism personally.

 Authentic activities should be examined from different perspectives

Allow for competing solutions and diversity of outcomes, thus encouraging flexibility and acknowledgement of the views of group members (Brown et al., 1989; Herrington et al., 2010).

 An authentic task is ill-defined and complex

Encourage self-regulated learning and collaborative learning, giving students the opportunity to choose their learning path and their own topic, and take ownership of their own learning and the learning of their members (Herrington et al., 2010; Vygotsky, 1978).

3.9 Conclusion

This chapter has described theories including situated learning, cognitive apprenticeship and learning within a community of practice upon which the authentic learning framework is based. Chapter Three has provided a focus for the nine elements of authentic learning and shown how these elements can be used to inform course design guidelines. Consideration has also been given to the use of TEL in social work and, more specifically, in the area of meso practice. Chapter Three includes eight draft design guidelines that were developed from phase 1 of the literature review, my own experiences and the views of the practitioners who were interviewed in phase 2 of the study. After providing a theoretical context for the

73

authentic learning framework, the focus of Chapter Four moves to the research methods used for this mixed-methods study, using modified educational design-based research (DBR).

CHAPTER 4 - METHODOLOGY

Research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose - Hurston, 2006, p. 143

4.1 Introduction

The various phases and procedures that were adopted in this modified design-based research (DBR) study for the meso practice course conducted in 2015 are explained in Chapter Four. Rich detail of this process is provided to allow for replication in another setting and by another person, and to ensure a degree of trustworthiness. A modified version of educational DBR was used, which is aligned to the research questions and objectives of the project. The aim of the research study was to investigate the extent to which authentic learning elements could improve the teaching of meso practice in a South African HE setting. The strategic aim was to develop guidelines for course design and development of facilitation skills in social work education, with specific reference to the meso level of intervention to prepare students for the profession. DBR has been modified so as not to include iterations of the course design, but rather focus on one implementation cycle. Chapter Four builds on the literature review section found in Chapters Two and Three, with specific reference to the theoretical underpinnings of the study. In this chapter, the various types of research method that were undertaken in each phase of the study are made explicit by describing the methodologies employed.

I have been teaching the meso practice course since 2011, have made various adaptations along the way, and continue to do so. This study focuses only on course implementation during the year 2015 with a group of 80 second-year social work students. A four-phase mixed method design was adopted, which was initiated together with stakeholder interviews and feedback in order to obtain a better understanding of how meso practice was taught and

74

how student supervision was conducted by other educators in South African HEIs.

75 4.2 The Use of Mixed Methods Research

Mixed methods research has been increasing in popularity and this prompted the development of the Journal of Mixed Methods in 2007 dedicated to these types of

studies(Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007; Herrington, 1997). The use of mixed methods in an educational environment has significance as multiple methods are often used to describe and measure the various factors that have a direct and indirect impact on teaching and learning. Creswell and Plano (2011) offer the following five historical stages that mixed- methods research has followed. The formative period occurred during the 1950s to 1980s, followed by the paradigm debate period from the 1970s to 1980s. The next phase was the procedural development period late in the 1980s to the 21st Century and later the advocacy and expansion period that began in the 2000s. In 2005 began the reflective period of mixed methods research. Mixed methods research has been lauded as a response to the ongoing debates about the merits and demerits of quantitative and qualitative research but there has been little agreement about a framework for this type of research (Bryman, 2012).The mixed methods design is defined by Collins and O’Cathain (2009, p. 3) as:

studies that ‘combine qualitative and quantitative approaches into research

methodology of a single study or multi-phased study’ (Tashakkori & Teddlie:17-18) and ‘as a research design in which QUAL [i.e. qualitative] and QUAN [i.e.

quantitative] approaches are used in types of questions, research methods, data collection and analysis procedures, and/ or inferences’ (Tashakkori & Teddlie 2003, p.711)

At an elementary level mixed methods research is used to describe research that integrates qualitative and quantitative research which includes data collection, data analysis within a project (Bryman, 2012).This research study adopted a phased mixed methods approach as the four phases do not necessarily inform the other phases directly. In the second phase

interviews were conducted with educators and field supervisors to understand the teaching and supervision of undergraduate students regarding the theory and practice of the meso practice intervention. In subsequent phases of the research use was made of a survey and interviews for data collection. The final phase of the study will be reflections of the entire process to create guidelines

76

Mixed methods research is undertaken in various disciplines including education, as it provides richer, deeper and broader insights into a wide range of interests and perspectives (Collins, Onwuegbuzie & Sutton, 2006; Rocco et al., 2003). The qualitative and quantitative methods that are used provide statistical trends and the stories give a more complete picture of the research findings. The advantages of mixed methods research include rigour and a way of integrating the survey data with the qualitative data from interviews and focus groups. When bringing the survey, student interviews and focus group discussions to bear on one another, a convergent design was used and the findings were analysed through the lens of the AL framework. Figure 2 provides a visual chart showing the phases of the research, each of which is elaborated on in the following sections of this chapter.

~

Figure 2 illustrates the use of qualitative and quantitative methods in the various phases of this study. DBR approaches can use qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods research in a pragmatic desire to work collaboratively on improving learning from an informed theoretical perspective (Kervin, Vialle, Herrington, & Okely, 2006; Reeves et al., 2005). The educational DBR method adopted for this study placed greater emphasis on the qualitative strand than was present in all four phases, to describe and investigate the various factors that have a direct and indirect impact on teaching and learning in the meso practice course. More extensive use was made of qualitative methods, which seek to understand phenomena that occur in natural settings and allow for the phenomena to be studied from multiple perspectives, with the researcher as a participant (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). In addition,

Phase 1 Theory Conceptualizatio n - Literature Review Qualitative stage Phase 2 Understanding the context - educators and FI supervisors Qualitative stage Phase 3 Survey - Quantitative/ Qualitative stage Open- and Closed- ended questions in Survey - focus groups, interviews, analysis of artefacts [ROL, and group assignments] Phase 4 Guidelines for course design Convergent Design

Figure 2: Four Phases of the Modified Design-Based Research Study

77

qualitative research allowed for the voices of the various participants to be heard, which helped to create greater ownership and achieved respondent triangulation (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). In DBR, there is a greater emphasis on content and pedagogy rather than technology, and the educational environment is changed to meet pedagogical outcomes, while special attention is given to the human interactions in a nurturing learning environment (Reeves et al., 2005). In order to set the scene and provide further explanation of educational DBR, the research approach employed in the study is here provided.