I ~NTER- ACTION I ~
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The methodology described below flows from the theoretical framework adopted for the study, namely Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) (Feuerstein, 2001). Mediated learning as advanced by Feuerstein (2001) is participatory in nature due to the notion of
"interaction" which is its central construct. Such "interaction" involves participation by all the relevant role players within a mediated learning experience.
The research methodology for this study is grounded on the concept of dynamic
interaction as espoused by the above theoretical framework. Through this study we intend to find out the ways in which learners negotiate their own learning through the dynamic and interactive processes ofMLE and project based learning (PBL) (Bransford and Stein,1993). Inthis chapter I describe the methodology used to collect data for the research questions stated in chapter 1. The research purpose focus on the creation of opportunities that allow learners to negotiate their meaningful learning. The chapter will be divided into the following sections: participatory research, the recruitment of
participants, participation process, development of curriculum, data constitution, how data was analyzed, and, a conclusion.
3.2 Participatory Research
This study is a participatory study using mainly qualitative methods that are complemented by some quantitative methods of data collection and analysis.
In participatory research the participants do not work in isolation but collaboratively on activities that are empowering (Elliott, 1991). In such activities individuals are shaped by organizational and structural forces, and there must be a free flow of information between participants, that is, extensive communication (Elliott, 1978). Other researchers refer to this type of research as a 'democratic activity' (Grundy, 1987 : 142) where the form of democracy is participatory, and incorporates, according to Morrison, (1998) democratic and consensual decision-making, equal rights of participation and discussion, shared responsibility and open accountability, and shared ownership of decisions and practices.
In such research, researchers are part of the social world they are studying (Hammersley and Atkins, 1983). In participative research one can use a variety for data constitution, namely, questionnaires, diaries, interviews, case studies, field notes, audio and video recordings, rating scales, documents and records, or photography (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000).
I used participative research, and my role as practicing educator, in order to explore and understand the social and human behaviour from the insider's perspective as it is lived by the participants (Arkava and Lane, 1983). I also committed all my intervals to being there for them, in case they needed further support or guidance, or to just sit and talk about their other interests or concerns.
In this way I could collect data through my sustained contact with the learners in a setting where they normally spend their time (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992).
I spent almost four months with the participants during normal school time and a few Saturdays interacting with them in sessions that they willingly participated, with parental consent (See Annexture 9). The role of teacher as researcher, and, participatory research methodologies, are discussed below. My role in the study, as intimated in the previous paragraph, is one of a "passionate participant" (Guba and Lincoln, 1994:115) involved with learners in my day-to-day classroom science teaching, learning, and assessment. My
"prolonged engagement" and "persistent observation" (Guba and Lincoln, 1994:237) helped me build trust, deal with misinformation, and uncover learner's deep
understandings about the topic. On the issue of objectivity, my prolonged engagement with the participants helped me practice, and become increasingly more aware of my own biases, so that these do not interfere with the outcome of the study.
The above role is to give support and facilitate learning through MLE and PBL as
discussed in Chapter 2, and, for the researcher to be neutral in the process. In the context described above, the distinctions between observer and observed, subject and object, and , insider and outsider, are blurred. The researcher in this study is not 'detached' and 'objective' (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The participative nature of the study also raises ethical questions: how do we deal with transparency and open access to the research findings?, and, will this ethical question enhance or limit the outcome of the study?
The participants and other education stakeholders will have access to the research
findings, and the identities of the participants will be kept confidential, as discussed prior to participation in the study.
The use of participants' names in the study will be negotiated with them and would be restricted to their first names only as stated in the parental consent form (see Annexture 9). The main participants agreed, after discussions with each one, that their first names be used in the study. Additionally, the requirement for validity embraces broader research outcomes, namely:
• catalytic validity or generativity (that is, the extent to which the research facilitated transformation and commitments to on-going transformation) (Vithal, 2000). The aim of this study is to bring about change, and hence lead to the participants'
empowerment, so that they can help other members of their community.
• participative validity (that is, the context to which the research design and conduct were participative and inclusive) (Lather, 2001).
In the spirit of participatory research, and, to foster participation by the learners, the learning activities in the probe or workbook (Annexture 13) were designed and based on the learner's interests, and, what they wanted to know. Against this backdrop of
particpatory research, I present a brief outline of the participatory nature of the research process, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the study, and how the theoretical framework links to a participative research approach.
Although the bulk of the rich data that was yielded from the study was qualitative, a limited section of the data was reduced into a quantitative form. The quantitative data was used to enrich and add value to the qualitative nature of the study, in the area of assessment. Assessment is an integral aspect of the study as discussed in the previous chapters. The complementary theoretical framework underpinning this research is mediated learning experience (MLE), whose construct is interaction. Interaction requires participation, in this case, through project based learning.
This study focuses on the interaction between the foHowing role player: learners, educators, peers, adults, and, other as discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.2). A short profile of the participating learners, and the community, including that of myself as educator, are discussed in Chapter I (Sections 1.6.1 to 1.6.3). This gives a short
background on the context of the study. Infrastructure and low-cost housing development has just recently being introduced in our local community characterized by sub-economic and informal housing settlements. A large section of the community have not had
electricity or tap water in or outside their dwellings before, and are going to have this very soon because of the new developments taking place in the area.