Determinación de metales extraíbles en suelos

Interpretive research is an active process of social enquiry and sense making in order to construct meaning (Erickson, 1986, and Greene, 1992). Vrasidas (2001) further elaborates on the notion of sense making in the field of educational technology, whereby the main purpose is to explore the meanings that teachers and learners negotiate through learning with technology. The purpose of this study is to explore the possibility of introducing mobile learning activities to support learning from the perspectives of Malaysian HE students in terms of which mobile learning activities are deemed useful for them. This is in tandem with the focal aspect of interpretive research that is concerned with the “implicit and explicit choice and meaning from the point of view of actors in social life, regarding the actions they take in everyday life” (Erickson, 1986, p.5). The focal point of this research is the Malaysian HE students’ construction of meaning about the possibility of using their mobile phones as a supportive mechanism for their learning.

It is the researcher’s goal in interpretive research to understand the multiple social constructions of meaning and knowledge in the complex context of the study. Mertens (1998) describes how interpretive research allows for concepts that are important in a study to emerge as they are constructed by the participants. This means thorough interpretive research, findings present how they were constructed by the participants in the study, and not as the researcher has designed them. In the design of mobile learning activities for this research it was the participants who shaped these activities through their perceptions of usefulness of a mobile application to support their learning.

According to O’Donoghue (2007), human actions are preceded by intentions which are derived through the perspectives that the person holds. The main task of interpretive research is “to discover the specific ways in which local and non-local forms of social organisation and culture relate to the activities of specific persons in making choices and conducting social action together” (Erickson, 1986, p.36). This means the focus of interpretive approach is to capture the participants’ perspectives and how they act in light of their perspective. Furthermore Vrasidas (2001) also indicates that “interpretive research is appropriate when one wants to find out more about certain structures of experience, the meaning-perspectives of the actors, and specific interrelationships between actors and environment” (p.8). Thus, in addition to understanding participants’ views through their

105

actions, interpretive research also probes into the participants’ relationships with the context examined and how this relates to their meaning making in relation to the situation.

According to McRobbie & Tobin (1997), learning environment research in most surveys focused on students' perceptions of their preferred classroom environment. They propose that “there exists a reality with absolute truths that can be communicated to other persons and that enquiry can determine and isolate variables of that reality which can then be used for prediction and control” (p.193). This means that in exploring a learning environment such as the mobile learning environment, there could be aspects of truth that arise. Through these known aspects, learning designers can ‘predict’ preferred classroom environment to be able to immerse the aspects in the learning design. Erickson (1989) supports this notion as “the immediate and local meanings of actions, as defined from the actors’ points of view” (p.119). This indicates that meanings and purposes are attached to activities by learners, thereby known aspects will arise. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 4, Section 4.6.1, this understanding is the basis for a mobile readiness questionnaire which was implemented as one of the methods of data collection. Other methods will also be discussed in Chapter 4.

An interpretive researcher needs to understand that exploring a context generates multiple meanings. As Gage (1989) proposed “the effects on people’s actions of their interpretations of their world create the possibility that people may differ in their responses to the same or similar situations” (p.5). This means that the participant in a study might differ in opinion from another participant as his/her perspective is not similar, even though they are both placed in the same environment. In this scenario, the researcher needs to discover the multiple meanings represented by the research participants’ thoughts and actions. Vrasidas (2001) recognise this need when he stated, “interpretive enquiry attempts to understand the multiple layers of meaning represented by human actions and how they are interpreted by those involved “(p.5).

Erickson (1986) posits that participants take “action towards objects that surround them in the light of their interpretations of meaning-fullness” (p.25). They take action in accordance to the meaning being interpreted by them. Meanwhile, Howe (1998) describes human beings as self-creating in which they actively shape and re-shape their meanings to their actions. This, according Klein & Myers (1999) means that the researcher needs “to ‘read’ the social world behind the words of the actors, a social world that is characterized by power

106

structures, vested interests, and limited resources to meet the goals of various actors who construct and enact this social world” (p.78). Therefore an interpretive researcher needs to understand the research data not only on the surface level but in-depth in line with the context. The participants are part of the context to derive the multiple meanings of the study. Human action has meanings and must be understood in the context of social practice.

Interpretivist enquiry also allows for the researcher to gain insights into a phenomenon by being involved in the research process. Findings are based on interaction between the researcher and the participants, hence meaning is a joint creation between both (Greene, 1992). This means that reality is socially constructed between those involved in the research. We also need to be aware that in interacting with those in the study there may be room to alter the perspectives of both the researcher and the participants. Since the researcher interacts with the research participants during the enquiry process this may change the perspectives of both parties (Walsham, 1995).

Oates (2006, pp.292-293) proposes a set of characteristics of interpretive paradigm research which are outlined in the following table in order to map the relations of the characteristics to this research.

Table 7: Characteristics Adapted from Oates (2006) of Interpretive Paradigm Research for This Study

Oates (2006) interpretive characteristics Further explanation of Oates (2006) interpretive research characteristics Interpretation of Oates (2006) interpretive research characteristics of

this study

Multiple subjective

realities as there is no single truth

Realties of knowledge are constructed socially by the individual. Different cultures are perceived differently in different situations. There must be allowances for different interpretations of a situation. Therefore

contextual understanding is essential in research.

Different perspectives were taken from 2 different student cohorts. All perspectives and understandings were considered for analysis in this study.

Context is presented in Chapter 2 of the thesis on learning environment and learners, and specifically in Section 4.8 pertaining to the participants.

The literature review in Chapter 2 attempts to provide different views of the content discussed.

107

The design of learning activities is based firstly on the various opinions from the literature review, and then based on the understandings from participants in the research. Hence, different views are considered.

Dynamic and socially

constructed meaning

Shared meaning (language) differs across groups and time.

The two different cohorts of the study indicate across groups and time. The cohorts were from the same background but 1 year apart from each other. Mobile learning activities that were designed were constructed through the voices of the participants.

Different meanings were extracted within the same cohorts as all voices were heard through the questionnaire and the

reflective blog posts in order to generate the research findings.

Researcher flexibility

Researchers have

assumptions, beliefs and values which affect how the phenomenon is viewed. These influence meaning, understanding and practices.

The intention and background of my research are declared in Section 1.3.1 in the thesis.

My reflection is also presented in the design process of the mobile learning activities in Chapter 4 and also the discussion of the findings (Chapter 7). Study of people in

their natural settings

Since it is aimed at

understanding the world the contexts need to be

discussed.

The study is situated in a classroom environment and not in a laboratory. The natural situation of the students plays an essential part in influencing the design of learning activities.

The tool chosen is the participant’s own mobile phone in order that the usage of a personal device takes place in authentic contexts. The mobile phone being ubiquitous ‘follows’ the students in their environment.

Multiple interpretations

Different voices of the The participants of the study represent education faculty students who come from

108 offer different

understandings of each phenomenon

participants. different ethnic groups from different parts of the country.

Data collected from different participants are heard through multiple methods. The different methods provide different views of the participants.

The explanations in Table 7 are provided to satisfy the criteria for interpretive study established by Oates (2006). It is also intended to satisfy the three criteria for interpretive studies, stipulated by Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991), which are: the phenomena are examined from the participants’ perspective; the phenomenon is analysed within a contextual perspective; and that the results are nondeterministic. The final criterion indicates that the result of an interpretive research cannot be conclusive.

In interpretive research, as there are multiple meanings it is not possible to reach one truth. Vrasidas (2001) states that “an interpretivist researcher can never get to the one complete “truth” and obtain a complete understanding of the setting she is studying” (p.7) as there are multiple truths. This means that it is not possible to generalise in an interpretive study, however according to Williams (2000) generalisation is unavoidable but is nevertheless limited.

Generalisation can happen as explained by O’Donoghue (2007), “interpretative studies undertaken with small populations may be in harmony with the reader’s experience and thus a natural basis for generalisation” (p.65). This means that the reader of the research is able to relate and reflect on their own situation and this is called “user or reader generalisability” (O’Donoghue, 2007, p.66). This is one type of generalisation that is possible in an interpretive study.

Another type of generalisation possible in an interpretive study is as Williams (2000) describes ‘moderatum generalisations’ for interpretive research, which are cultural consistencies and it is this consistency that makes social life possible. This type of generalisation is “what it is that the researcher wants to understand, and of course if she can understand them then she will know something of the cultural consistency within which they reside and is then able to make her own generalisations about that cultural consistency” (p.220). This means the generalisations generated from the interpretive researcher are

109

produced through cultural insights. Walsham (1995) notes that generalisation is possible as it takes on the forms of concepts to specific implications or rich insights. Williams (2000) adds that “The cultural consistency that led to the moderatum generalisations is some kind of guarantee that the operationalisation represents the reality of those for whom it is inclined” (p.222). This means that cultural consistency leads to moderatum generalisations for the interpretive researcher. The argument that generalisations can be derived from interpretive research findings could possibly be applied to this research because a list of feasible mobile learning activities could be elicited through the research process.

A research paradigm serves as the foundation of a research study and the role of a theory in research is “as an initial guide to design and data collection, as part of an iterative process of data collection and analysis, or a final product of the research” (Walsham, 2006, p.324). The choice of theory is subjective, as the interpretive researcher will need to find insights of the theory. The next section presents the theory for this study which is based on Walsham’s (1995) assertion that “interpretive methods of research adopt the position that our knowledge of reality is a social construction by human actors” (p.376).