Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
QUESTIONNAIRES
The richness of the data obtained from the CCFO workshop as well as the fact that the concentrated competencies were categorised in six components, prevented the construction of a single questionnaire. Six different questionnaires were constructed, one for each component of the spider cobweb model.
The following aspects were attended to while constructing the questionnaire in order to prevent common errors from being made. No negatively stated questions were asked. The matrix-ranking format of the questionnaire prevents a poorly understood and confusing questionnaire. The instrument is not too long; only six components of the spider cobweb model are covered in the questionnaire. One questionnaire contains approximately 17–20 questions. Monooperational bias (Mouton 2001:104) is avoided, and single construct measurement is avoided as the respondents are expected to order the competencies per category, which enables a relative degree of preference, priority and intensity to be charted (Cohen et al. 2001:252). No double-barreled questions were used. The competencies stated as the items, were well defined and explained in the questionnaire. The questionnaires, constructed in Word application of the Micro Soft Office suite, were formatted to Excel spreadsheets. Initially it was decided to format the questionnaires using PDF software. This was impossible, as the software does not allow the respondent to type on the questionnaire as it appears on the screen. This also complicates the programming of the questionnaires, as the data obtained had to be converted to an Excel spreadsheet to manipulate it with their software developed specifically for statistical manipulation.
The Excel formatted questionnaires force the respondents to complete every single ordering category. Each question contains variables that have to be ordered by the respondent. The Excel formatted questionnaires provide the respondent with drop-down lists containing values in accordance with the quantity ordering categories. Once a value has been selected, it is automatically eliminated from the list of possible values to choose from. However, the respondent is still able to change the values if decided to do so. The questionnaire is programmed in such a way that the respondent cannot exit the document unless fully completed, and the respondent receives a notification of this when opening the document. This forces the data to be comprehensive, with no missing values and no duplication of values.
Once the respondent has completed the questionnaire and returned it, the data are automatically converted to another Excel spreadsheet that captures all the responses of the entire sample group.
A pilot run of the questionnaires was performed before they were distributed to the identified sample group. The pilot run was performed to increase the reliability, validity and practicability of the data to be obtained (Cohen et al. 2001:252). The clarity of the questionnaires was checked, ambiguities or difficulties in wording were eliminated, feedback was sought on the type of questionnaire, visual appeal, layout, time taken to complete and trying out the coding.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Manageable themes, patterns and trends were identified during the analysis of the data. “Data are analyzed to determine the relationship between concepts, constructs or variables and to see whether there are any patterns or trends that can be identified or isolated or to establish themes in the data” (Mouton 2001:108). Steyn et al. (1999) maintain descriptive statistics and these principles were incorporated in describing the data obtained.
The representation below could be made within the limits of the data. The data are represented in tabular format. The tabular representation enables the reader to correlate the ratings of the competencies per spider cobweb model as indicated by the respective respondent groups. The competencies as represented in the tables are ranked from the highest order to the lowest.
The competency categories per spider cobweb model have been interpreted following the sequence of the CCFOs; the data is represented accordingly. Each CCFO statement needs to be discussed in its own right as the competencies per statement are unique. The first column under the overall ranking heading indicates the V-number (variable number as indicated in the questionnaires). A V-number has been allocated to all the competencies in the questionnaires for ease of data capturing and data manipulation. These V-numbers are represented in the tables to draw a parallel to the questionnaires. The middle column provides a description of the V-number. The Code column indicates this V-number.
The third column under the overall ranking section indicates the rating of the competencies as perceived by all the respondents as a group. The other columns indicate the V-number according to the ranking received per respondent group; the respondent groups were indicated earlier in this chapter.
CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH ORIENTATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 RATIONALE
1.3 THE RATIONALE FOR ACTION RESEARCH
1.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
1.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH FOCUS
2.3 CRITICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
2.4 SCIENTIFIC ORIENTATION
2.5 RESEARCH METHODS
2.6 QUESTIONNAIRE
2.7 ETHICS CONDUCTED
2.8 PLANNING FOR DATA ANALYSIS
2.9 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
2.10 ANTICIPATING THE REPORT OUTLINE
2.11 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: LEGISLATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON THE CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOMES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 ETIOLOGY OF THE CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOMES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY
3.3 AN ANALYSIS OF THE TERM CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOME
3.4 CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOMES IN RELATION TO KEY COMPETENCIES AND MAYER COMPETENCIES
3.5 TERMINOLOGY DESCRIBING THE CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOMES
3.6 THE NATURE OF THE CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOMES
3.7 MILIEU OF THE CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOMES
3.8 CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOMES AS EMBEDDED IN QUALIFICATIONS WITHIN THE NQF
3.9 CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOMES IN RELATION TO SPECIFIC OUTCOMES
3.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4: THEORETICAL GROUNDING OF THE UNDERPINNING COMPETENCIES OF THE CRITICAL CROSS-FIELD OUTCOMES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 AFFECTIVE DOMAIN SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE CCFOS
4.3 COGNITIVE DOMAIN SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE CCFOS
4.4 THEORETICAL GROUNDING OF THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CCFOS
4.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5: EMPIRICAL STUDY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH
5.3 POLICY DOCUMENTS
5.4 TEXT ANALYSIS
5.5 LITERATURE ANALYSIS
5.6 INTERVIEWS
5.7 CCFO WORKSHOP
5.8 QUESTIONNAIRES
5.9 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
5.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 GENERAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
6.3 FIRST RESEARCH QUESTION
6.4 SECOND CLUSTER OF RESEARCH QUESTION
6.5 FIRST CLUSTER OF RESEARCH QUESTION
6.6 SECOND CLUSTER OF RESEARCH QUESTION
6.7 THIRD RESEARCH QUESTION
6.8 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
6.9 PROPOSED FURTHER RESEARCH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
