Questionnaires

Questionnaires are research methods through which people are asked to respond to the same set of questions in a predetermined order (Delport 2011). Questionnaires can be used in case studies as they involve seeking the in-depth opinions and perspectives of a small number of participants. Two different questionnaires were used during the first phase of this case study. Each questionnaire will be described separately, and will be referred to as Questionnaire A and Questionnaire B.

5.5.1.1 Construction of Questionnaire A

The aim of the questionnaire was to determine the current state of community engagement in the postgraduate programme of the CCYFS. Literature was reviewed and examined before the construction of the questionnaire to determine whether existing instruments could be used in the gathering of the information for this study. According to Hart and Northmore (2010), there is no simple solution for the development of audit and evaluation tools for measuring university community engagement. It was found that several instruments do exist (see Addendum E on attached CD for a summary of available approaches and tools) and that they measure specific aspects as indicated in Addendum E. None of the existing instruments seemed appropriate as they focused more on the institution. Hence, they were not applicable to provide an overview of community engagement within this specific programme. Therefore, the researcher found it necessary to design her own instrument to suit this specific study. In the development of the questionnaire, existing instruments were reviewed and a preliminary list of items was developed to correspond with the research question. The content of the questionnaire was also developed based on the perspectives gained from the literature review.

To enhance the accuracy of the questionnaire, the questions were discussed with the promoters and were pilot-tested to reduce the incidence of non-response to the questionnaire (Gray 2009:259). Pilot testing aims to identify problems and correct them before the instrument is used (Christensen et al. 2011:353). The piloting of the questionnaire was done and questions were reformulated and adapted according to the feedback received.

5.5.1.2 Types of questions included in Questionnaire A

This self-administrated questionnaire contained mostly open-ended questions as open questions provide the potential for richness of responses (Gray 2009:259, 337-339; Maree & Pietersen 2007:160-161). The questions were divided into various sections allowing for issues to be addressed in a logical sequence (Leedy & Armrod 2001). The questions were formulated based on the literature review (Chapters 2, 3 and 4) and were stated as follows:

Question 1: In which year of study were you in 2011? This question aimed to determine the current study year of the student. Alreck and Settle (2004:24) find that demographic groups differ significantly in terms of issues of importance. Hence, demographic groups can be used to identify segments, groups, audiences or constituencies of people who were both identifiable and behave in similar ways.

Question 2: Please state your current understanding of community engagement. This question focused on determining how the students see and define community engagement and specifically in the postgraduate programme of the CCYFS.

Question 3: Do you think that you have benefitted from your involvement in the community (e.g. school, NGO, children's home) in which you did your internship/practical work other than gaining experience in play therapy? If yes, what did you gain/learn? If no, kindly motivate. The aim of this question was to determine whether their involvement in the community was to their benefit and, if so, how did they benefit from this involvement.

Question 4: Do you think that the community (e.g. school, NGO, children's home) benefitted from your involvement? If yes, how did they benefit? If no, please motivate. The focus of this question was to determine whether the students feel that the communities have benefitted from their involvement.

Question 5: Would you have wanted to be more involved in the community (e.g. school, NGO, children's home)? If yes, how do you think that would have been possible? The aim of the question was to determine whether the duration of the current involvement of the students in the community had been sufficient and whether the duration should be increased or decreased.

Question 6: Would you have preferred to be involved in a community from your first year? If yes, how do you think this could have happened? The question was aimed at determining whether the students feel that they want/need to be involved in the communities from their first year of study.

Question 7: Do you think that your internship gave you sufficient opportunities to achieve therapeutic competencies and skills? Yes/no, please motivate your answer.

The aim of the question was to determine whether the current programme (practical work/internship) provides sufficient opportunities for the students to achieve competencies in the skills that are taught.

Question 8: During your studies, you were exposed to experiences and given the opportunity to reflect on your experiences. Please indic ate the extent to which you agree with the following statements by marking the appropriate number with an X: Through reflection your sensitivity to the community was enhanced (Yes/No); Through reflection your awareness of social responsibility was enhanced (Yes/No); Reflection provided you with the opportunity to further understand the module content (Yes/No); Reflection provided you with the opportunity to broaden your appreciation of the discipline (Yes/No); Reflection provided you with the opportunity to make the connection between service and the module work (Yes/No). All of these questions focused on the affectivity of the use of reflection in the programme.

Question 9: Do you think that the theoretical modules, internship/practical and research were fully integrated (they received equal attention) into the curriculum? Yes/no, please motivate your answer. This question was aimed at determining how the students experienced the integration of the three core functions.

Question 10: Did you formulate your research question/problem from your internship/practical involvement? If yes/no, please motivate your answer. This question was aimed at determining whether the students were able to or could identify their research problem/question from their involvement in the community.

(See Addendum G on attached CD for Questionnaire A.) 5.5.1.3 Construction of Questionnaire B

As indicated in Section 5.5.1.1, several instruments can be used to determine the state of community engagement in a university, the details of which are indicated in Addendum E (on the attached CD). In the researcher's search for an appropriate instrument, she found a rubric which had been developed for use in academic departments. The questionnaire consisted of a rubric designed by Prof Kevin Kecskes, co-director of the Centre for Academic Excellence, Portland State University, USA. The rubric was designed to assess the capacity of a higher education academic department

for community engagement and to help its members identify various opportunities for engagement. The assessment rubric builds upon existing and/or validated prior work of Kecskes and Muyllaert (1997), Furco (2000, 2003), Gelmon and Seifer et al. (2005), and Kecskes (2006 as cited in Kecskes 2006). This instrument is based on advice f rom key informant interviews and the recognition of the importance of the role of academic departments in the overall institutionalisation of community engagement in higher education (Holland 2000; Furco 2002; Battistoni et al. 2003; Morreale & Applegate 2006; Saltmarsh & Gelmon 2006; Zlotkowski & Saltmarsh 2006 cited in Kecskes 2006). This questionnaire (see Addendum G on attached CD) was used after consultation with Prof Kecskes on 7 July 2011 and after permission was granted by him to use this instrument. The questionnaire was used to obtain the views and understanding of current lecturers in the postgraduate programme of the CCYFS on the current state of community engagement within the CCYFS postgraduate programme.

The rubric is structured along six dimensions, which are considered by most community engagement experts to be key factors for the institutionalisation of community engagement in higher education academic departments (Wergin 1994, 2003; Holland 1997; Battistoni et al. 2003; Gelmon & Seifer et al. 2005; Zlotkowski 2005 cited in Kecskes 2006). Each dimension is composed of several components that characterise the dimension. For each component, a four-stage continuum of development has been established. This continuum starts with Stage 1, which indicates levels of awareness

building. This is followed by Stage 2, which is described as critical mass building. Stage

3 focuses on quality building while Stage 4 focuses on institutionalisation. This continuum suggests how a department can shift from Stage 1, which is awareness building, to the full institutionalisation of community engagement within the academic unit (Furco 2000, 2003; Kecskes & Muyllaert 1997 as cited in Kecskes 2006).

The conceptual framework for the rubric is based largely on three knowledge sources: 1) the prior self-assessment rubric, matrix and benchmark instruments cited above; 2) various literature sources that discuss the critical elements for institutionalising community engagement in higher education; and 3) key informant interviews that provided foundational information for the development and enhancement of this rubric (Kecskes 2006). (See Addendum H on attached CD for Questionnaire B.)