|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRIANGULATING A
VOCATIONAL TUTOR’S AND HER LEARNERS’
MEANING-MAKING ON A PRE-APPRENTICESHIP
HAIRDRESSING PROGRAMME IN THE TERTIARY SECTOR
|
|
|
Willfred Greyling, Cheryl Belcher, Evelyn McKnight
|
|
|
Waikato
Institute of Technology (Wintec), Hamilton, New Zealand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
In this article, we report on how we used a repertory ratings grid to triangulate
a vocational tutor’s and her learners’ meaning-making on a pre-apprenticeship hairdressing
course in the tertiary sector. We devised and administered a group repertory
grid to elicit learners’ constructs-based ratings of seven elements whose focus
of convenience was “effective industry-directed and employability-promoting
hairdressing training practices”. Finally, we performed two sets of analyses:
the first, to show how the constructs-based ratings were configured; and the
second, to explore how the elements in the grid were associated within the grid data.
Keywords: Triangulation,
repertory grid, vocational training
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Shared
stakeholder meanings and constructive alignment
In
this article, we report on a tutor’s and her students’ meaning making on a
pre-apprenticeship training programme in the tertiary sector in New Zealand.
The programme was selected for several reasons, among these, the tutor’s good
practices, high completion rates, positive employer feedback and high learner
ratings. Having obtained positive feedback about the tutor’s training and
learners’ competence from a regional employer, we reasoned that three key
stakeholders (i.e. a regional employer, the tutor and the learners) had made
the same judgement call, validating the training on the programme. Our general
aim was to contribute to the quality debate, arguing that within the tertiary
training institute positive tutor self-evaluation and student feedback were not
enough: somehow we needed to triangulate participants’ claims about their roles
and practices.
We
adopted a multi-method approach to triangulate the extent that the tutor and
her students were able to create shared or inter-subjective meanings. Two forms
of triangulation were used (Flick, 2004). First, we selected investigator
triangulation, involving the tutor-trainer as a co-researcher to develop an
insider’s perspective; and two other researchers, one with hairdressing-training
and literacy-development background, and the other with experience in applied
linguistics and literacy development in vocational contexts. The authors cycled
through the text of this article, before and after the reviewers’ reports, to
produce a shared and consensus-based account of the project. Second we opted
for methodological triangulation: we used student course evaluations, a focus
group (Madriz, 2003; Williams & Katz, 2001), and a group-administered
repertory grid (Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004) to cross-validate the
findings. One of our research questions was whether our use of correlations and
a cluster analysis, as well as analyses of elements and constructs, could
provide us with both mutually reinforcing and additional findings.
Furthermore,
we argued that our approach could extend the notion of constructive alignment (CA)
(see Houghton, 2004; Biggs & Tang, 2007). CA, based on phenomenography and
constructivist premises, implies that teachers synchronise learning outcomes,
teaching methods, learning activities and assessments. Our process focused on
the students’ construing of the tutor’s intended vocational training-related
meanings, enacted in her instructional practices. In a sense, we invoked
Kelly’s sociality corollary which states that “to the extent that one person
construes the construction processes of another, he [she] may play a role in a
social process involving the other person” (Kelly, 1955, p. 95). Thus, our
purpose was to show that the tutor and the students on the programme had
created such a shared or inter-subjective reality.
Meaning-making, power
and triangulation
We
assumed that the tutor-trainer’s authority allowed her to select, design and
manage the learning spaces, role definitions, principles and practices to
achieve her training objectives. Her authority prompted us to consider Cummins
(2009) who distinguishes between coercive and collaborative relations of power
between educators and their learners.
Coercive
relations of power, Cummins (2009, p. 263) states, “refer to the exercise of
power by a dominant individual, group, or country to the detriment of a
subordinated individual, group or country”. The negative consequences are
manifested in learning spaces that constrain learners’ efforts to define their
identities. These coercive contexts tend to silence learner voices, and prevent
them from developing their identities. In contrast, in collaborative relations
of power, Cummins (2009, p. 263) continues, “ ‘power’ is not a fixed entity,
but is generated through interaction with others”. For this reason, we were
interested in establishing whether the tutor-trainer and the learners agreed
that they had collaborated in creating an authentic learning space, replicating
identity-developing vocation-specific experiences. If the training salon was
run as a commercial enterprise, the tutor reasoned, these authentic learning
experiences would allow trainees to develop their professional identities as
participants in the community of hairdressing practitioners. Learners,
responding to our enquiries, we argued, could still act strategically, opting
for responses they felt would either be low risk, or ‘please’ the tutor or even
the researchers. Thus, we were aware that we had to triangulate our findings
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2008); hence our use of investigator and methodological
triangulation (Flick, 2004).
RESEARCH AIMS
Our
research aims were to map the tutor’s key constructs informing her training
practices; investigate whether learners shared the tutor’s key constructs; validate
the tutor’s constructs in a focus group session with her learners; triangulate
these explicitly articulated learner accounts of the tutor’s key constructs,
obtaining indirect evidence of the consistency (or otherwise) from a repertory
grid analysis; and analyse how these meanings were configured in learners’
ratings.
RESEARCH METHODS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In
this section we present the research methods we selected to achieve our
research aims. In each sub-section, we outline the research method, followed by
the relevant research question.
Questionnaire to a regional employer
We
approached a regional employer for qualitative feedback on the industry-readiness
of learners completing the pre-apprenticeship hairdressing qualification. A
one-page questionnaire was used to answer the following research question: How would the targeted regional employer judge trainees’
work-readiness on completion of their course?
Interview with the tutor
We
interviewed the tutor-trainer and co-author, Cheryl Belcher, to obtain her
account of the key constructs informing her practices. We summarised ten of
them, adding both the “why” and the “how” of her approach. We defined these
principles as bipolar constructs (Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004, pp. 27-30;
Kelly, 1966/2003, p. 10), indicating the tutor’s preferred pole in each case. An
open-ended interview, we reasoned, was the best research method to obtain answers
to the research question: What would
the tutor table as the constructs, principles and practices informing her
approach? Our approach was conversational. The three of us had an informal
discussion, asking the tutor to identify the key principles informing her
practices. These were viewed as the positive poles of her constructs. Once
defined, we asked her to state the opposite pole. Collaboratively, we then
arrived at a formulation of a bipolar construct, bearing in mind that the
aspect of difference had to relate to the same commonality (Kelly, 1955, pp. 50-51).
We allowed the tutor-trainer and co-researcher to direct us in formulating the
constructs.
Focus group
interview with learners
We
(i.e. excluding Cheryl Belcher) interviewed the group, using the tutor
constructs as an agenda to log the learners’ choice of preferred poles. Focus
group methodology (Madriz, 2003; Williams & Katz, 2001), we argued, would
allow us to respond to the research
question: To what extent would learners’ meaning-making (i.e. their
conscious choice of preferred pole of each construct) coincide with the
tutor’s?
Group repertory
ratings grid
We
devised a repertory grid consisting of 10 constructs and 7 elements (Fransella,
et al., 2004). After analysing the constructs, we also investigated the
comparative relationships among the elements (Fransella, et al., 2004, pp. 50-52;
pp. 91-93; Fransella, 2003, pp. 109-110). In later sections, we outline the
processes followed in identifying constructs and elements. Our research questions
were: To what extent would the repertory grid data confirm consistency in
learner meaning-making if focus group and group grid data were compared? How
could the analyses of constructs and elements allow us to triangulate our
findings?
Statistical
analyses of group grid ratings
After
administering the group grid, we processed the ratings, importing an Excel file
into IBM SPSS (IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). We performed
the statistical analyses outlined below, and for each we report the relevant
research question:
- Descriptive
statistics
per construct (i.e. means and standard deviations).
Our research question: How would
learners’ ratings relate to the tutor’s and their preferences expressed in the
focus group?
- A 10 x 10 correlation matrix for the constructs in the grid.
Our research question: How were learners’
constructs-based ratings associated within the group grid?
- A cluster
analysis to establish how the constructs-based ratings were configured for
the group (Fransella, et al., 2004, pp. 87-88).
Our research question: Using
a dendrogram, how could we make sense of their constructs-based ratings?
- We then
replicated the correlation matrix and dendrogram for the elements.
Our research question: What would these
analyses reveal about how current and ideal training practices; current
practices and industry requirements; as well as current practices and trainee choice
of practices, either as a learner or as a trainer were related?
RESEACH FINDINGS
AND DISCUSSION
Following
the sequence above, we present the findings and discussion below.
Employer
validation
A
regional employer validated the employability of trainees completing their pre-apprenticeship
hairdressing training, deeming them to be equipped with appropriate and valued hairdressing
skills and personal literacies to cope with the demands of the industry. The
qualitative feedback is lodged with the institute.
Principles and
practices informing the tutor’s hairdressing training
We
outline the outcome of our collaborative attempt at capturing the tutor’s
account of ten key constructs informing her practices in a salon-based approach
to training. Following Fransella et al. (2004, pp. 27-29), we defined 10
bipolar constructs (as stated earlier). We also asked the tutor to provide her
“whys” for adopting these principles, as well as the “how” of pursuing them in delivery.
A key focus of the “how” of her approach involved e- and m-learning which involved
learner access to e- and m-learning resources and activities. The tutor-trainer’s
approach to make available an array of synchronous and asynchronous activities
in Moodle (an e-learning software platform), as well as retrievable video-clip
based vocational training resources in Moodle and on iPods, was an attempt to
champion the use of personal mobile and wireless devices in her teaching
(Beetham & Sharpe, 2007) and to promote student-centred access and control
over vocational information and learning (Mayes & De Freitas, 2007, pp.
21-23). The tutor-trainer’s constructs are outlined below:
Principle 1: Integrate
theory and practice in salon-based learning
Reason (Why):
Linking theory and practice develops theory-informed practice.
Construct 1: “Link
theory and practice in salon-based training practices vs master the theory; practical work can wait.”
How?
First,
establish practices on hairdressing practice models. Second, find real clients.
Next, the trainer validates all trainee decisions prior to their working on a
client’s hair. Thus, the trainee analyses a client’s needs, defining a course
of action to be validated by the tutor.
Principle 2: Establish a
high level of collaborative team-based learning
Reason:
Co-operative teams are more successful than ones that are not.
Construct 2: “Working in
teams is unimportant – individual learners have to cope on their own vs working in teams is important – learners
collaborate in groups to complete tasks.”
How? Define how
teams are to complete hairdressing tasks: clarify role definitions and
practices, and reinforce the requirements for successfully dealing with actual
clients. Socialise learners into their roles. Explicitly validate learner
actions when they are consistent with industry requirements in salon-based
learning.
Principle 3: Structure a high
level of participation in real-life learning (authenticity in learning and
teaching)
Reason:
Following
a participative, salon-based approach promotes engagement and active learning.
Joint trainer-trainee decision-making about client requests and needs is
required.
Construct 3: “Low levels of
learner participation are acceptable; studying workbook content is most
important vs high levels of learner
participation in real-life learning are important.”
How? Work to
specific standards for successful completion of hairdressing activities. Model
actions and practices. Use retrievable e- and m-learning resources. Scaffold
practices before clients become involved; then, supervise tutor-client
interactions; finally, relax supervision. Engage learners on the basis of their
personal journal entries.
Principle 4: Develop
self-confident and responsible agency in learners
Reasons: Industry seeks
employees who are self-confident and can take responsibility. Success promotes trainees’
self-confidence which is a prerequisite for them to take responsibility.
Construct 4: “Learners
develop a sense of self-confidence and personal responsibility vs learners
are left to their own devices – their practical skills are of less importance.”
How? Build
relationships of trust: be consistent, fair and reliable. The group assigns roles
and responsibilities in the salon, including all aspects of the day-to-day
management of the salon. Provide performance-enhancing feedback, indicating
when industry standards are met. Mediate and model practices to meet industry
requirements; and use e- and m-learning video clips as self-access resources.
Principle 5: Develop employable and autonomous
employees
Reasons: Employers do
not want to re-train new employees. They have to be able to act on their own as
autonomous hairdressers.
Construct 5: “Learners
are employable and independent from the first day of employment vs learners
will not be entirely unemployable, but will have to be re-trained on the job.”
How? Follow the
mediation-autonomy cycle: mediate learner decisions and practices, using joint
decision-making, modelling and guided practice as initial strategy. Withdraw
mediation and allow independent practice. Continue to provide feedback aimed at
industry standards. Reduce and then remove scaffolds for learning.
Principle 6: Develop
positive employer perceptions of learner knowledge and skills
Reasons: Employers judge
employees’ employability
Learners
want to know that their training meets employers’ expectations.
Construct 6: “Employers
will not be impressed with the skill levels of newly qualified hairdressers
from this group vs employers will be
impressed with the skill levels of newly qualified hairdressers from this group.”
How? Ask employers
for feedback. Ensure that the standards set by professional hairdressing bodies
and the institute’s Quality and Academic Unit are met. Build relationships with
employers to meet their requirements. Seek employer validation of training
practices and trainee competencies.
Principle 7: Pursue a novel
approach to develop autonomous learners
Reasons: Autonomous
learners require less supervision and can be utilized immediately in industry.
Construct 7: “This exciting approach will develop
learners’ independence vs the approach is too traditional and will not
achieve programme objectives”.
How? Mediate learner
practices at first, using modelling and guided practice. Withdraw mediation and
allow independent practice. Continue to provide feedback. Use m-learning video
clips as a retrievable and “re”-viewable modelling resource.
Principle 8: Prepare
learners for industry
Reason: Learners
engage in authentic, industry-directed learning which replicates real-life
demands in context.
Construct 8: “This approach
does not prepare learners for work in the industry vs this approach prepares learners for work in the industry.”
How? Use a real-life
salon as a learning space. Replicate the tasks and roles associated with a
salon. Define roles and address actions that do not comply. Tutor-mediated
decision-making processes are followed until trainee competence is well
established; then gradually reduce and withdraw tutor mediation. Develop learners’
professional appearance, actions and participation in salon practices. Develop
learner portfolios and CVs to market their skills.
Principle 9: Provide
performance-enhancing feedback so learners may develop their skills
Reasons: Mediated
feedback and retrievable e- and m-learning clips of practices promote learning
and self-confidence in practices.
Construct 9: “The tutor’s
feedback relates to learning information rather than developing skills vs the tutor’s feedback relates to developing
skills rather than learning information.”
How? Enhance trainee
performance through corrective modelling, repetition and mediated
decision-making. Use e- and m-learning video clips as a retrievable and
“re”-viewable modelling resource.
Principle 10: Develop
effective skills for work in hairdressing salons
Reasons: Develop
hairdressing skills (ways of doing) in a real-life salon.
Construct 10: “This approach
will not teach learners effective skills in the salon vs the approach will teach learners effective skills in the salon.”
How? Create a
supportive learning space. Promote professional decision-making and action in
an authentic real-life salon. Develop appropriate roles and practices by
referring explicitly to them.
We
concluded that the tutor-trainer was able to articulate the key constructs,
including the “whys” and the “hows” of her approach. In her view, the interview
itself raised her awareness of her role and practices. The outline above became
an agenda for engaging learners in a focus group session.
Focus group data
In
a focus group, we discussed the principles that the tutor had tabled as key to
her approach, seeking explicit evidence that the students construed her
training as located on the preferred poles that she had identified. Learners
consistently validated the preferred poles of the tutor’s constructs. They also
validated the tutor’s approach as valued and appropriate in developing their
work-readiness.
Designing and
administering a group repertory ratings grid
To
design a repertory ratings grid, one requires elements and constructs. Learners
then rate each element in terms of each bipolar construct in the grid. One is
required to select elements that fall within the focus of convenience of the
grid (see Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004, p. 17; Kelly, 1966/2003, p.
11). We used employer feedback and the tutor’s interview contributions to
define the focus of convenience of the constructs: “effective industry-directed
and employability-promoting hairdressing training practices”.
The
three researchers defined the focus of convenience and the roles and scenarios
that would serve as elements. Following Wright (2008) who has illustrated the
use of heterogeneous elements in business strategy research, we opted for a
combination of hairdressing-related roles, as well as scenarios that captured
relevant vocational training situations. In Table 1, we report on the elements we
defined for the grid. These elements, we reasoned, if placed within a
contrastive pattern of meanings, could provide useful student perspectives on
the trainer’s hairdressing principles and practices. We included elements that
would allow us to compare current versus ideal practices, training and industry
requirements, admired tutor-trainer practices; and learner views of their
vocational identities in relation to the future, either as learners or
tutor-trainers.
Tab
1: Elements for the grid
| Element |
Focus
of convenience:
Effective
employability-seeking and industry-directed hairdressing training practices |
Scenario
1:
Think about a
group of hairdressing students who attend only two weeks of practical after
spending 10 weeks on theory. All practical work is done in the two-week
period.* |
Integrating
theory and practice in hairdressing training
|
Scenario
2:
Think about
your current training in the training salon. |
Current
hairdressing training practices |
Scenario
3:
Imagine the
ideal hairdressing salon and how you would want to be trained in that salon |
Ideal
hairdressing training practices |
Scenario
4:
Think about
your training and industry requirements |
Hairdressing
practices in relation to industry requirements |
Role 1:
If
you were in charge of training hairdressers, the following poles of the
constructs would apply: |
Learner
choices of hairdressing training practices (Learner as trainer) |
Role 2:
If
you were a junior hairdresser in your first year of training, on which side
of the table of constructs would you prefer to be when you learn: |
Learner
choices of hairdressing training practices (Learner as novice trainee) |
Role
3:
Imagine a
hairdressing tutor (responsible for your training) who has set an example you
felt you could follow. |
Tutor-trainer
admired for her practices |
*
Scenario 1 is the opposite pole of the tutor’s desired
integrated-theory-and-practice authenticity and realism in training.
Each
construct was placed on a rating scale (1 to 7). A rating of 4 = being uncertain; 3
& 5 = I agree with this pole; 2 & 6 = I strongly agree
with this pole; and 1 & 7 = I very strongly agree with this pole. To
prevent learners blindly marking ratings for poles on one side of the grid, we
reversed the poles of 6 of the ten constructs. We then produced an 8-page
loose-leafed ratings booklet which was administered page by page in group
context by two of the researchers. When we then processed the data, we entered
the ratings with the preferred poles on the left, and the 7-point rating scale
changed to a +3 to -3 scale (3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2 and -3), applying grid focusing
(Feixas & Cornejo, 2002). Thus, the preferred poles were located on the +3
to +1 ratings, as seen in the results in Tables 2 and 3. This switch eliminated
all negative correlations in the correlation matrix for constructs.
Descriptive
statistics
The
ratings grids were completed by 12 students (N=12). Each student produced 10
ratings per element (N=70 ratings per grid). Put differently, 12 students
produced 84 ratings per construct and 840 ratings in total for the group. As
stated earlier, our purpose was to show that the consistency between the
tutor’s interview data and the learners’ focus group data was replicated in the
840 ratings. We assumed that the heterogeneity of the elements might pose
difficulties to students; thus, we included a practice page unrelated to
hairdressing. Except for two second-language learners who required additional explanation,
students completed the ten pages in 45 minutes with no difficulties reported. Find
in Table 2 below, the means and standard deviations for the ratings. To
interpret the means, one has to note the preferred pole for each construct
(which is marked in bold in Table 2 below):
Tab
2: Descriptive statistics for group (N=12 trainees) ratings per construct (N=84 ratings per construct)
|
Construct definitions and SPSS labels in brackets |
Mean |
Std.
dev. |
C1
|
Show
theory-in-action
vs theory first, practicals can wait (Int_v_Sep_theory)
|
2.60 |
.85 |
C2
|
Working
in teams is important vs
unimportant (High_vs_low_team) |
2.07 |
1.63 |
C3
|
High
vs low level of participation in authentic
learning (High_v_low_real_life)
|
2.30 |
1.02 |
C4
|
Gain
vs not
gain self-confidence/personal
responsibility (Conf_resp_v_own_resp) |
2.08 |
1.43 |
C5
|
Becoming
employable vs not employable, and having to
retrain (Empl_v-unemploy) |
1.70 |
2.06 |
C6
|
Employer
impressed vs
unimpressed (Employr_unimp_v_impres) |
1.80 |
1.87 |
C7
|
Approach
exciting to develop autonomy vs too traditional (Excit_indep_v_Tradional)
|
1.95 |
1.63 |
C8
|
Trainees prepared vs unprepared for industry (Indust_prep_v_unprep)
|
2.02 |
1.78 |
C9
|
Tutor feedback re skills developed vs information mastery (Skills_v_info_driven)
|
1.20 |
1.80 |
C10
|
The tutor’s approach
will vs will not teach effective skills (Effective_v_ineffective) |
1.69 |
2.15 |
We
concluded that the group means for the ratings per construct allowed us to
cross-validate the learners’ position on the tutor’s preferred poles. These
were the poles they agreed were the framework for tutor action in the focus
group session.
Triads of correlated constructs
Construct
theory researchers often refer to the complexity and the scope of the findings
generated by repertory grids (Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004: p. 82).
In an attempt to control this complexity, we decided to use triads of constructs.
Following Van Lier (1996), we opted for Peirce's (1931) notion of triadic
relationships among concepts; in other words, triadic thinking involves the
view that an element in a triad cannot be understood without reference to the
remaining two elements. Our triadic approach, we reasoned, allowed us to
re-construct meanings that went beyond pairs of correlated poles, and construe
the relatedness of several preferred and correlated poles. Of course, there is
no reason not to escalate the number of poles to four, five or more.
We
identified these triads as follows: For each construct, we considered the two
most highly correlated constructs (i.e. correlations of 0.4 and higher) in each
column of the matrix. Following this process, we identified the three most
highly associated preferred poles in each column. We identified seven triads of
meaning in the learners’ ratings data to serve as prompts for interpreting the
group of students’ meanings and how these related to the tutor-trainers’
meaning-making. See the correlation matrix in Table 3 below:
Table
3: Correlations among ratings for the ten
constructs
|
Constructs |
C2 |
C3 |
C4 |
C5 |
C6 |
C7 |
C8 |
C9 |
C10 |
C1
|
Int_v_Sep_theory |
.26 |
.45 |
.50 |
.36 |
.24 |
.46 |
.29 |
.11 |
.43 |
C2
|
High_vs_low_team
|
|
.57 |
.37 |
.80 |
.24 |
.36 |
.32 |
.29 |
.28 |
C3
|
High_v_low_real_life |
|
|
.62 |
.53 |
.38 |
.53 |
.50 |
.31 |
.49 |
C4
|
Conf_resp_v_own_resp |
|
|
|
.55 |
.47 |
.74 |
.50 |
.36 |
.59 |
C5
|
Empl_v_unempl |
|
|
|
|
.38 |
.63 |
.56 |
.35 |
.45 |
C6
|
Employr_impr_v_unimpr |
|
|
|
|
|
.52 |
.59 |
.32 |
.65 |
C7
|
Excit_indep_v_Traditional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.66 |
.33 |
.71 |
C8
|
Indust_prep_v_unprep |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.39 |
.77 |
C9
|
Skills-v info-driven |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.40 |
To
illustrate our approach, we discuss four of seven triads of correlations below.
Triad
1:
Learners support
an integrated theory-and-practice model, and expect training to replicate conditions
that will help them develop personal literacies such as autonomy,
self-confidence and personal agency [constructs 1, 4 and 7]
First,
the group very strongly agreed that they viewed an integrated theory-and-practice
model as key to their developing effective hairdressing skills (Table 3; construct
1; m = 2.60). Next, the group ratings suggest that learners associated such an
integrated theory-and-practice model with their developing self-confidence and
personal agency (Table 5; construct 4; r = .50); and that the tutor should
follow a novel approach in seeking to develop their autonomy (Table 5; construct
7; r = .46).
Triad
2:
Learners
associate collaborative team-based learning and a high level of authentic
real-life learning in a salon with their viewing themselves as employable and
autonomous [constructs 2, 3 and 5]
The
group rated a high level of collaborative team-based learning very highly
(Table 3; construct 2; m = 2.07), and associated this member of the triad with
a high level of real-life learning (Table 5; construct 3; r = .57). In the
group’s meaning-making these two constructs were associated with their viewing
themselves as employable (Table 5; construct 5; r = .80).
Triad
3:
Learners’ ratings
suggest that they associate a high level of real-life learning with their
developing self-confidence and personal agency, as well as their viewing
themselves as employable and autonomous [constructs 3, 4 and 5].
Learners
rated a high level of participation in real-life learning (construct 3; m = 2.30)
very highly; and associated this pole with their developing self-confidence and
personal responsibility (construct 4; r = .62). The group associated these two
poles with their perceiving themselves as employable (construct 5; r = .53).
Triad
4:
Learners’
ratings suggest that they associate their developing personal literacies and
vocation-specific skills with a novel approach, adopted by the tutor, to build
their autonomy as hairdressers [construct 4, 7 and 10]
Learners
strongly agreed with the view that their developing a sense of self-confidence
and personal responsibility (construct 4; m = 2.08) was important; moreover,
they associated these positive personal competencies with the tutor adopting an
exciting or novel approach to develop their autonomy (construct 7; r = .74) and
effective skills (construct 10; r = .59).
Dendrograms from cluster analyses of
constructs and elements
Although we
deemed the correlations we had used to identify triads of associated preferred
poles as meaningful, we noted Feixas and Cornejo’s (2002) outline of the
limitations of product moment correlations. Invoking the notion of
methodological triangulation, we decided on computing hierarchical cluster
analyses (“Cluster analysis”, n.d.) to cross-validate our findings above, and
perhaps complement our findings. These analyses yielded dendrograms (see Figures
1 and 2 below) which provide a graphic account of how the preferred poles of
the constructs (Fig. 1) and the elements (Fig. 2) were configured on the basis
of their closeness of association. We found two clusters of constructs.
Figure
1: Dendrogram of clustered variables
(constructs)
For the first
(constructs 1 & 3; 4 & 7 and 2 & 5), the results suggested that the
learners’ ratings showed a close association between
- a high level of real-life learning
(construct 3) and an integrated theory-and-practice model of training
(construct 1) (pair 1);
- learners’ developing self-confidence and
a sense of personal responsibility in the workplace (construct 4), and the
tutor’s approach which has to be novel so that trainees may develop autonomy in
and for the workplace (construct 7) (pair 2);
- and a high level of team involvement
(construct 2) and becoming employable (construct 5) (pair 3).
Students’ ratings
validated the tutor’s focus on selecting an authentic learning space in which
to learn, participants’ working within an integrated theory-and-practice model
of delivery, as well as their developing self-confidence and a sense of personal
responsibility, maintaining a high level of team involvement and becoming
employable. To support these outcomes, the tutor was required to adopt a novel
approach which promoted learner autonomy in and for the workplace.
The
second cluster showed associations among constructs 8 & 10, and then 8, 10
& 6, with construct 9, related at a higher level of generality. These
constructs related to industry readiness: to be work ready (construct 8) was
associated with learners being taught effective skills (construct 2); and these
two constructs were associated with employers validating their skills
(construct 2).
The
two sets of findings suggested that the tutor’s and the students’
meaning-making coincided on core meanings: becoming employable and industry-ready,
adopting an integrated theory-and-practice model; becoming socialized into the
hairdressing community of practitioners; ensuring participation in the group;
developing personal literacies as part of employability, as well as utilizing
vocation-specific learning spaces and tasks. Both the tutor and the trainees anticipated
positive employment and work-readiness outcomes.
Correlations
among the elements in the grid
Presented
below is the correlation matrix for the elements in the grid.
Table
4: Correlations among the elements in the
grid
| Elements |
Sc2 |
Sc3 |
Sc4 |
R1 |
R2 |
R3 |
| Sc1 |
-.04 |
.04 |
-.09 |
-.10 |
-.14 |
-.06 |
| Sc2 |
|
.66 |
.72 |
.73 |
.64 |
.61 |
| Sc3 |
|
|
.70 |
.66 |
.72 |
.50 |
| Sc4 |
|
|
|
.76 |
.81 |
.58 |
| R1 |
|
|
|
|
.74 |
.60 |
| R2 |
|
|
|
|
|
.72 |
The matrix above shows
(a)
a moderate to high correlation between
scenarios 2 and 3 (.66) which implies that learners rated the tutor-trainer’s
current hairdressing training practices as consistent with what they deemed to
be ideal practices;
(b)
a high correlation between scenario 2
and 4 (.72) which suggests that learners rated the tutor-trainer’s current
practices as meeting industry requirements;
(c)
high correlations among elements 2, 5
and 6 which suggest that the group associated current practices to be
consistent with what they would choose either as a beginner hairdresser or as a
beginner tutor-trainer: between scenario 2 and role 1, the correlation is .73;
between scenario 2 and role 2, .64; and between roles 1 and 2, .74.
Thus, these correlations allow us to conclude that students
rated the tutor-trainer’s enactment of her role and training practices as
effective and consistent with what they deemed to be required in industry. From
the focus group responses, we concluded that they viewed her as a role model
whose training practices were exemplary.
Interestingly,
Scenario 1 represented the opposite of the tutor’s approach. This element was
consistently rated as contrastive. This interpretation is supported by the cluster
analysis: in the dendrogram, the distance between scenario 1 and the rest of
the elements is pronounced. Note also the close association among the remaining
elements, reinforcing the findings reported directly above:
Figure
2: Dendrogram of clustered variables
(elements)
CONCLUSION
This small-scale
research project validated the tutor’s approach to pre-apprenticeship hairdressing
training.
- First, we were able to triangulate learner
accounts of the tutor-trainer’s key constructs, obtaining direct evidence from
a focus group and indirect evidence from a group ratings grid to show
consistency within the two data sets.
- Second, we concluded that our tentative
interpretations of triads of correlations among constructs and the dendrograms could
serve as an agenda for critical-reflective tutor-trainer activity and tutor-trainee
exchanges.
- Third, the ratings validated key themes
in hairdressing training: becoming employable and industry-ready, adopting an
integrated theory-and-practice model; becoming socialized into the hairdressing
community of practitioners; ensuring participation in the group; developing
personal literacies as part of employability, as well as utilizing
vocation-specific learning spaces and tasks.
- Next, our analysis of the relationships
among elements (supported by focus group findings) showed that the
tutor-trainer was viewed as a role model whose training practices were consistent
with what they perceived to be her effort to develop their work-readiness and
employability.
- In a general sense, we were able to use
a group grid to explore the tutor-trainer’s training-related meaning-making and
the extent to which trainees shared these meanings. In this way, we cross-validated
stakeholders’ claims about the quality of the training offered to these
trainees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
|
Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (2007). An
introduction to rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. In H. Beetham & R.
Sharpe (Eds.). Rethinking pedagogy for a
digital age. Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 1-10). London:
Routledge.
Biggs, J. & Tang, Y. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university:
What the student does. Berkshire, England: Society for Research into Higher
Education & Open University Press.
“Cluster
analysis.” (n.d.) Chapter 17. Retrieved on February, 7, 2012 from http://www.norusis.com/pdf/SPC_v19.pdf
Cummins, J. (2009).
Pedagogies of choice: challenging coercive relations of power in classrooms and
communities. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 261-271.
Denzin, N.K. &
Lincoln, Y.S. (2008). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 1-43). Los Angeles: SAGE
Publications.
Feixas, G. &
Cornejo, J.M. (2002). A manual for the
repertory grid. Using the GRIDCOR programme (Version 4.0). Retrieved on
July, 23, 2012 from http://www.terapiacognitiva.net/record/pag/contents.htm
Flick, U.
(2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick,
E. von Kardorff, E., & I. Steinke. (Eds.). A
companion to qualitative research (pp. 178-183). London: SAGE
Publications.
Fransella, F. (2003).
Some skills and tools for personal construct practitioners. In F. Fransella (Ed.).
International Handbook of personal
construct psychology (pp. 106-121).
Chichester: Wiley.
Fransella,
F., R. Bell, & D. Bannister (2004). A
manual for repertory grid technique. Chichester: Wiley.
Houghton,
W. (2004). Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory
for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre. Retrieved
on May, 16, 2012, from http://www.engsc.ac.uk/learning-and-teaching-theory-guide/constructive-alignment.
IBM
SPSS Statistics 19 (1989; 2010). Core systems user’s guide. SPSS Inc. Retrieved
on May, 16, 2012 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/52036589/IBM-SPSS-Statistics-19-Core-System-User-s-Guide
Kelly,
G.A. (1955). A theory of personality. The
psychology of personal constructs. London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Kelly,
G.A. (1966/2003). A brief introduction to personal construct theory. In F. Fransella
(Ed.) (2003). International Handbook of
personal construct psychology (pp. 3-20). Chichester: Wiley.
Madriz,
E. (2003). Focus groups in feminist research. In N.K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 363-388). Thousand
Oaks: SAGE.
Mayes, T. & De Freitas, S. (2007). Learning
and e-learning. The role of theory. In H. Beetham &
R. Sharpe (2007) (Eds.) Rethinking
pedagogy for a digital age. Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 13-25).
London: Routledge.
Peirce, C. S. (1931).
The collected papers vol. I: Principles
of Philosophy. Retrieved on February, 7, 2012 from http://www.textlog.de/4284-2.html
Van Lier, L.
(1996). Interaction in the language
curriculum. Awareness, autonomy and
authenticity. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Williams,
A. & Katz, L. (2001). The use of focus group methodology in Education: Some
theoretical and practical considerations. International
Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 2001, 5/3, pp. 1-7. Retrieved
on April, 17, 2012 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/williams_katz
Wright,
P. (2008). Eliciting cognitions of strategizing using advanced repertory grids
in a world constructed and reconstructed. Organizational
research methods, 2008, 11, pp. 753-769.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
|
|
|
The
authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their detailed
comments and suggestions, which, we hope, we have addressed adequately in this
final version of the text. We accept full responsibility for this revised
version of the text. |
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT
THE
AUTHORS
|
|
|
| Willfred
Greyling, literacy-embedding manager at Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec),
is interested in grids as a means to raise educators’ and learners’ awareness
of teaching and learning. He is also a research associate in the Department of
English at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. E-mail:
Wilfred.Greyling@wintec.ac.nz
|
 |
| Cheryl
Belcher, a
senior academic staff member on the level 4 hairdressing programme at Wintec, has
more than 20 years’ experience of hairdressing and training in New Zealand and
the United Kingdom. E-mail: Cheryl.Belcher@wintec.ac.nz
|
 |
| Evelyn
McKnight, a literacy-embedding tutor at Wintec, has more than 40 years’ hairdressing
experience. Her research interests include literacy embedding in vocational
contexts. E-mail: Evelyn.McKnight@wintec.ac.nz. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Greyling, W., Belcher, C., McKnight, E. (2013). Triangulating
a vocational tutor’s and her learners’ meaning-making on a pre-apprenticeship
hairdressing programme in the tertiary sector
Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 10, 1-15, 2013
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp13/greyling13.html)
Correspondence address: Wilfred.Greyling@wintec.ac.nz |
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 5 August 2012 – Accepted: 25 February –
Published: 14 March 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|