3.7 METHODS OF DATA GENERATION
3.7.1 Reflective activity
Reflective activity is designed to nudge practitioners to reflect on a situation; it seeks professionals to reflect on the basis of their individual strengths, for instance the ability to solve the problem, or to reflect on the emotional impact of the problem on oneself (Cowan, 2017;
Roessger, 2015). Both Cowan (2017) and Tsutsui and Takada (2018) believe that professions have adopted reflective activities in their institutions for different reasons, which can be classified as follows: reflection for action, reflection in action and reflection on action. In the
70
context of this study, lecturers’ reflective activity relates to reflection for action since the lecturers asked themselves what they have to do to design a plan of action for this fresh task (designing strategies for decolonisation of curriculum), including any necessary development of their abilities. This suggests that reflection for action allows lecturers to examine their previous practice and thereafter strategies in order to achieve the new goal, which in this case is decolonisation of the university curriculum. Moreover, lecturers’ reflection activity requires the lecturers to complete a short set of questions about the phenomenon studied (strategies) (Dewey, 1938; Killen, 1989). This suggests that lecturers were given time to reflect on their practices to discover whether they have certain strategies to decolonise the university curriculum. The reflective activity (questions) were formulated using curriculum concepts in the curricular spiderweb outlined as the study’s conceptual framework (chapter two). The activity requested that lecturers reflect on set questions, as represented in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3. 2: The research concepts, questions and expected responses
Concepts Questions Lecturers’ are expected reflect
based on:
Rationale Why are you teaching English Major 420? Professional Personal Societal Goals Towards which goals are you teaching English
Major 420?
Objectives Aims Outcomes Content What content are you teaching in English Major
420?
Knowledge content
Personal development content Social preparation content Resources What resources are you using to teach English Major
420?
Hard-ware Ideological-ware Soft-ware Lecturer role How do you facilitate the teaching of English Major
420?
Assessor (content centered) Instructor (lecture centered) Facilitator (student centered) Assessment How do you assess the learning of English Major
420?
Summative assessment Formative assessment Peer assessment Teaching
environment
Where are you teaching English Major 420? Face to face interaction Online teaching Blended learning Teaching
activities
Which activities are you using to teach English Major 420?
Academic writing Tutorials
Group works Accessibility How do you access the teaching of English Major
420?
Financial access Physical access Cultural access
71
Time How long do you teach English Major 420? Contact time Spare time Leave time
Based on Table 3.2, lecturers were expected reflect based on propositions identified on each concepts from the literature (chapter 2).
Question 1 was expected to stipulate the content that lecturers teach in English Major 420. This requested lecturers to indicate the content they teach under three sections of English: Literature, Creative writing and Language. Moreover this question also aimed to explore how lecturers select literature to be taught in lecture venues in terms of context (African or international literature). Berkvens et al. (2014) assert that content on any module should prepare students on the three propositions of professional knowledge, social preperation and personal preperation.
Therefore, based on the three areas of teaching in the English module (Literature, Creative writing and Language), lecturers were expected to indicate the strategies they use to decolonise their curriculum, whether personal, societal or professional strategies.
Question 2 aimed to explore the lecturers’ rationale for their teaching of English Major 420. In this question lecturers were expected to respond on their personal reasons for teaching this module, the societal reasons for teaching this module according to the needs of the community as well as professional reasons for teaching it. Khoza (2016b) revealed that the success of any teaching lies in the rationale of each lecturer. This suggests that rationale at any level prepares lecturers to strategise effectively with the aim of decolonising their curriculum. I expected to get responses on strategies created based on personal, professional or societal rationale.
Question 3 requred lecturers to outline goals for which they teach English Major 420.
Moreover, in this question lecturers were expected to explain the goals according to aims, objectives and outcomes (Kennedy et al., 2009): where they want to see their students in the long run (aims), the short-term goals they stipulate each time they go to lecture (objectives), as well as who they want their students to be in the societies they come from (outcomes). This question also aimed to find out if lecturers have strategies based on these propositions in order to decolonise the curriculum. I expected to get responses on strategies created in terms of aims (personal), objectives (professional), and outcomes (societal visions).
Question 4 intended to discover assessment types they mostly used when evaluating this module. The assessment types that lecturers were expected to respond on were formative and summative as well as peer assessment (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Kisaka, 2017; Zondi, 2015).
72
This suggests that this question intended to find out if lecturers use all forms (assessment for, as and of learning) of assessment in evaluating students’ knowledge and if they use these types of assessments to design strategies with the aim of decolonising their curriculum. I expected to get responses on strategies created by individual participants’ (formative), strategies created for social purposes (peer assessment) and those created professionally (summative assessment).
Question 5 aimed to understand resources that lecturers use in their teaching of English Major 420. This also recquired lecturers to indicate the kind of resources they use to to teach the module according to three propositions: hardware, software and ideological-ware resources (Khoza, 2015b). This also expected to find out if lecturers have specific theories (ideological- ware) that guide their module, except for supporting resources in the teaching of a module (hardware) and software resources. Moreover, this question expected to explore strategies lecturers designed based on teaching resources in order to decolonise the curriculum. I expected responses on how to strategise using theories (ideological-ware - habitual strategies) of the module, to strategies are created using societal views (software - verbal strategies) and to strategise on hardware resources (writen strategies).
Question 6 was based on where English lecturers teach their module in terms of teaching and learning environment propositions: through face-to-face interaction, online learning and blended leaning (Thijs & Van den Akker, 2009a; Yuen, 2010). This suggests that this question aimed at finding out if lecturers use traditional ways of teaching and learning (face-to-face interaction), advanced ways of teaching and learning (online learning) or a combination of traditional and online learning (blended learning). Moreover, this question was to explore strategies lecturers use in order to decolonise the curriculum, e.g. making the teaching environment conducive for both African as well as well as international students (co-operative learning) and e-learning. I expected responses on how the teaching and learning environment can be made conducive for the context in which lecturer and students share information (e.g.
group activities to allow for social constructivism).
Question 7 expected to explore English lecturers’ role in the teaching of English Major 420.
Here the lecturer was to indicate which role he/she plays in the facilitation/teaching of this module. Moreover, lecturers were expected to respond on the three propositions to this concept:
instructor, facilitator or assessor (Bridgstock, 2016; Maharajh et al., 2013). This suggests that lecturers were expected to indicate if they are lecture-centred, student-centred or content-
73
centred in their teaching of English Major 420. Moreover, I wished to know how they strategise based on the different roles they play in their teaching of the module. I expected to get responses on the lecturer’s way of teaching as strategies to decolonise the curriculum (e.g. using content- centred teaching or otherwise).
Question 8 expected to explore teaching and learning activities/tasks lecturers use to assess their teaching over a certain period of time, to be answered based on three propositions: formal, informal as well as continous activities. Bozarth (2012) as well as Loddington (2008) believe that in English activities are always in the form of individual tasks and group activities as well as formal academic writing. Moreover, the question was to find out if lecturers have strategies in these activities which are designed to decolonise the curriculum. I expected responses on, for example, using academic writing to create a strategy to decolonise the curriculum.
Question 9 aimed to find out how lecturers provide access to their teaching. Lecturers were expected to answer based on three concept propositions: physical, financial and cultural accessibility (Addy, 2012; Sosibo & Katiya, 2015a). This suggests that lecturers had to indicate the cultural and financial state of their students, as well as their physical availability to teach students in physical interactions, plus how they strategise based on the three propositions with the aim of decolonising their curriculum. In this question I expected to understand, for instance, how cultural accessibility can influence examples the lecturer gives as a strategy to decolonise the curriculum.
Question 10 intended to find out how long lecturers spend in teaching. Time allocation was looked at in three propositions: contact time, spare time and leave time (Cunningham &
Yamasaki, 2018; Ganser, 2002). This question aimed to understand how lecturers spend their time apart from contact time with students in lecture venues in terms of designing strategies to be used to decolonise the English curriculum. I expected responses on, for instance, how lecturers use their spare time as well as holiday time to learn recent ways (strategies) in the academic world on how to decolonise the curriculum for better implementation in future. One- on-one semi-structured interviews were the second data generation method used in this study, which is discussed below.