Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
THE CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCT OF RESEARCH
Research has been described as a systematic investigation or “enquiry whereby data are collected, analysed and interpreted in some way in an effort to understand, describe, predict or control an educational or psychological phenomenon to empower individuals in such contexts.” (Mertens, 2005:2). In order to facilitate the afore-mentioned the researcher has to choose a point of departure which will serve as a premise for the stated objective. The paradigm as it pertains to the theoretical framework (Mertens, 2005) is regarded as that point of departure that forms the basis of the research process. Babbie (2001: 42) supports this assertion by stating that, “a paradigm is the fundamental model or frame of reference we use to organise our observations and reasoning”. Paradigm can be regarded as related assumptions or propositions that frame thinking and research. Creswell (1998:74) supports this view by stating that, “all qualitative researchers approach their studies with a certain paradigm or world view, a basic set of beliefs or assumptions that guides their enquiries”.
These relate to:
• the nature of reality;
• the role of values in a study;
• the relationship of the researcher to what is being researched,
• the process of research – the methodological issue.
A study that was conducted by De Wet and Smith (1998:181) revealed, inter alia, that education is undertaken from a diversity of paradigms with 13 identified paradigms. The study further revealed that from the articles that were analysed only 4% gave an account for the paradigmatic perspective while 87% positioned their hypotheses or methodologies within existing theoretical frameworks.
THE TRANSFORMATIVE PARADIGM
The Transformative Paradigm is usually regarded as a deviation from dominant research paradigms and perspectives (Mertens, 2005). It arose as a result of dissatisfaction that the issues of social justice were not adequately dealt with by the dominant paradigms of that time. It is often associated with a political agenda and mixed method approaches (Creswell, 2003). However, for the context of this study its association with a political agenda will be dispensed with in lieu of the action for reform agenda which carries the supposition that it “may change the lives of the participants, the institutions in which the individuals work or live and the researcher’s life (Creswell, 2003:9). The association with mixed-methods validates its link with the bricoleur’s multi-theoretical perspective even though a qualitative approach will be used. The multi-theoretical perspective positions the researcher as a theoretical bricoleur who works through and between multiple theoretical paradigms (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:5).
The change-agency supposition referred to above (Creswell, 2005) lends a pragmatic quality to the transformative paradigm. The bricoleurs’ perspective presents the view that bricoleurs are paradigmatic negotiators (Kincheloe et al., 2007) who fall into two main categories, namely:
(i) Those who allow the research process to yield new insights. The first category presupposes an open-mindedness that allows for new theoretical associations and that is not confined to a particular theoretical stance. This means that in this case the researcher does not have a cast-in-iron theoretical orientation that bars entry to any other paradigm. In this regard the link with the pragmatic paradigm can thus be seen as a new insight.
(ii) Those who have a grander purpose in mind (Creswell, 2007; Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2008).
In this second instance the researcher sets out with a specific aim in mind and towards this end a specific set of theoretical tools is used to attain the desired pre-determined outcome.
In this study both categories are valid because, on the one hand, there is an expectation that the data and research process will provide new perspectives while there is also a circumstantially-dictated agentic emancipatory objective. The latter is influenced by the aim of the study to be responsive with regard to the overall research mandate of strengthening the BEd Foundation Phase programme as it pertains specifically to the Black BEd Foundation Phase (BFP) pre-service teacher cohort. For purposes of the afore-mentioned agenda the change-agency and empowerment agenda of the Transformative Paradigm justifies and necessitates the inclusion of the concomitant concepts of critical consciousness, critical literacy, praxis and transformative learning. This is in conformance with the study’s alignment with the bricoleur’s perspective.
As pointed out earlier, the approach of the bricolage is to posit the view of the ‘methodological bricoleur’ whose research combines different lenses of critical enquiry. (Kincheloe et al., 2007). Within this study the concept of the bricolage refers to the linking of theories and associated constructs, which, takes into account, “the complexity of the lived world and [thus] grounded on an epistemology of complexity” (Kincheloe, et al., 2007:168; Denzin & Lincoln, 1999; Kincheloe, 2001 & 2004; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004). This conceives of bricolage research as “a critical, multi-perspectival [and] multi-theoretical approach to enquiry”. For purposes of this study the bricolage will be constituted by the fact that it is critical qualitative enquiry which draws from different perspectives and theories that are held together by the Transformative Paradigm.
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW & ORIENTATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PURPOSE AND RATIONALE
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.6 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH
1.7 ASSUMPTIONS
1.8 KEY CONSTRUCTS
1.9 ABRIDGED BACKGROUND OF TEACHER EDUCATION
1.10 CURRENT SITUATIONAL REALITY OF TEACHER EDUCATION
1.11 THESIS FOCUS AREAS
1.12 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.13 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS
1.14 CLOSING COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW & CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 THE CONSTRUCT OF IDENTITY
2.3 THE CONSTRUCT OF LANGUAGE
2.4 THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY
2.5 THE TECHNOLOGICAL TURN
2.6 THE ROLE OF CODIFICATION
2.7 THE PARADOX OF LANGUAGE
2.8 THE JUXTAPOSITION OF LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY
2.9 THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.10 THE TRANSFORMATIVE PARADIGM
2.11 CENTRAL DEFINITIONS OF CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
2.12 THE ROLE OF VALUES
2.13 THE NEED FOR A RESPONSIVE STRATEGY
2.14 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THE METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE
3.3 THE DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH
3.4 PARTICIPANTS OF THE STUDY
3.5 DATA COLLECTION
3.6 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
3.7 DATA ANALYSIS
3.8 ASSUMPTIONS IN RELATION TO THE RESEARCH DESIGN
3.9 CRITICAL THEORY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
3.10 THE ASSET-BASED APPROACH IN THE RESEARCH DESIGN
3.11 VALUES IN THE RESEARCH DESIGN
3.12 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4: REPORTING AND ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 DATA COLLECTION STRATEGY
4.3 COMMENTARY ON THE INTERVIEW PROCESSES
4.4 THE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT IN RELATION TO THE ASSUMPTIONS
4.5 THEME 1: EXPOSURE TO ENGLISH IN PRE-UNIVERSITY CONTEXTS
4.6 THEME 2: EXPOSURE TO ENGLISH IN THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT
4.7 THEME 3: IDENTITY FACTORS IN RELATION TO PARTICIPATION
4.8 LIMITATIONS
4.9 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 THEMES, FINDINGS AND LITERATURE
5.3 RESPONSE AND DISCUSSION: SUB-RESEARCH QUESTION 1
5.4 RESPONSE AND DISCUSSION: SUB-RESEARCH QUESTION 2
5.5 RESPONSE AND DISCUSSION: SUB-RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3
5.6 RESPONSE AND DISCUSSION KEY RESEARCH QUESTION
5.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 PILLARS OF EDUCATIONAL TRANSFORMATION
6.3 WHAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT?
6.4 POSSIBLE FURTHER RESEARCH
6.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7: REVIEW AND SUMMATION OF THE STUDY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 REVIEW OF THE STUDY
7.3 RESEARCHER’S REFLECTIONS
7.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
7.5 CLOSING COMMENTS
REFERENCES
