My investigation of the learning experiences of VCAL Educators focuses on real people, the experiences they bring with them and their current experiences, which is what Denzin and Lincoln (2003) consider the “province of qualitative research … the world of lived experience, for this is where individual belief and action intersect with culture” (p. 12). In my study the everyday learning experiences intersect and are affected by several cultures; the countercultural nature of teaching and learning in VCAL, the practice architectures (Kemmis et al. 2014) of the provider setting, and the meaning perspectives (Mezirow 1990) of the VCAL educators.
I have selected to use an interpretive qualitative case study as it supports my desire to “[d]escribe, understand, interpret” (Merriam 2009, p. 11) and be actively involved in negotiate[ing] meaning” (Connole 1993, p. 20) from the data and understanding “what is going on [in] the definition of the situation” (Connole 1993, p. 19 italics in original). Subsequently in this case study I aim to describe and interpret everyday workplace learning experienced by VCAL educators as they use counter cultural teaching and learning strategies which may challenge existing practice architectures (Kemmis et al. 2014). I am unable forecast to when or where VCAL educator learning occurs or what form it may take.
However Yin (2003) argues that in this regard a case study seeking to investigate how educators learn has a “distinct advantage” as a research method when used in “a contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or no
100
control” (p. 9). A case study allows me to contextualise the data by explaining “why events or facts appear as they do” (Yin 2003, p. 59).
Merriam (2009) believes that “qualitative researchers are interested in how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (p. 14). A qualitative approach allows me to “stress the socially constructed nature of reality” (Denzin & Lincoln 2003, p. 13) in which VCAL educators work. In particular I am able to examine the sociocultural differences educators observe and experience as they boundary cross from teaching a familiar curriculum to an unfamiliar one. Yin (2012) has argued that understanding the context is “integral to understanding the case(s)" (p. 4) and has also argued elsewhere that to explore situations which are different, “case study is the method of choice” (2003a, p. 1). My
consideration of the context in which VCAL programs are provided also supports my construction of meaning from the data (Chadderton & Torrance 2005; Merriam 2009).
Case Study does not limit data collection from one source and benefits from having a range of data sources (Braun & Clarke 2013; Yin 2012). Subsequently I am able to draw on field notes made as I collected data, attended applied learning professional development opportunities and work as an educator in an applied learning pre-service teacher education course. This is legitimised by Denzin and Lincoln (1998) who say
Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts-that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals' live.
Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix on the subject matter at hand. (p. 4)
Drawing on a range of data sources provides opportunity to strengthen resultant findings by considering evidence from a number of differing perspectives (Braun
101
& Clarke 2013) or, as others refer to it, triangulating the data (Yin 2012; Denzin & Lincoln 1998).
My research is contemporary, another characteristic of case study (Yin 2003, pp. 5, 8), as it is an exploration of everyday workplace learning experiences of practicing VCAL educators. Chadderton and Torrance (2011) warn that “it is not possible to generalize from one or a small number of cases to the population under study as a whole” (p. 54) and I do not claim the resultant data will be “statistically representative” (p. 54) of the workplace experiences and learning of all VCAL educators. A case-based position includes explanation of settings and contexts in which learning occurred “to contribute to our knowledge of
individual, group, organizational, social, political, and related phenomena" (Yin 2003, pp. 1,5) and to “illuminate” understanding of a particular issues
(Chadderton & Torrance 2011, p. 54). The research provides “in-depth analysis of a bounded system” (Merriam 2014, p. 38), by being able to compare experiences of VCAL educators between sites where VCAL is provided. Chadderton &
Torrance (2011, pp. 53-54) also stress the importance that case studies
demonstrate depth rather than coverage. Subsequently this research is able to provide a representation of the work of VCAL educators in a range of contexts and settings. As the first significant study of the everyday learning of VCAL educators, it will contribute considerably to understanding how educators learn to teach against the grain (Boomer 1985) of dominant pedagogies.
My case study is interpretative (Merriam 2014, p. 16; Yin 2003a, p. 5). Chadderton and Torrance (2011) argue that providing rich description of the problem before attempting to interpret it is critical. I do this in Chapter Five, Six and Seven by providing a selection of narratives crafted from extracts of data transcriptions in which the voice of the participant dominates. My aim is for VCAL educators to provide their unique experience in their own words. As a result, the narratives also include descriptions of the setting of individual participant’s teaching, characteristics of their student cohort, their past
102
experiences and how they have mediated from teaching in one curriculum to another. These are all aspects that are able to inform my understanding of the context, practice architectures and meaning perspectives of the participants (Denzin & Lincoln 2003; Kemmis et al. 2014; Mezirow 1990).
An interpretive descriptive case study also suits my research as I consider the learning of VCAL educators against a social historical perspective of vocationally related education and training and the counter cultural nature of the VCAL program. However, it is not a critical qualitative study as my aim is to provide understanding, rather than bring about immediate change (Merriam 2014) although areas for change may be suggested as a result of my study. While I use narrative to present data and discussion, I provide one telling of the data rather than several. I should also make clear that the case study is not
phenomenological in nature. While all participants share a common
phenomenon, being the experience of learning to teach in VCAL, and my interest is in their “lived experience” (Merriam 2014, p. 24 citing van Manen 1990) I am not concerned with the “essence” of the experience or emotions (Merriam 2014, pp. 25-26) related to the learning experience as much as the nature of the
learning experiences themselves.
My study used interviews to capture data. The following explains the rationale and description of selection and use.