El papel de la tutoría académica

The question of the relevance of the findings beyond the specific study applies across a wide range of research into the effectiveness of reminiscence-based activities, not only in education, but also in health and social care practice, due to a lack of consistency in reminiscence techniques used between studies. For instance, in reviewing the literature on the use of reminiscence to promote well-being, some studies describe using tangible artefacts and memorabilia as a way of stimulating conversation, which has similarities with the approach taken in this study. Wang (2004), for instance, used sounds and photos, while Chao et al (2006) encouraged participants to use personal memorabilia to assist the sharing of memories. Jones (2003) describes the use of photos, scrapbooks and personal memorabilia in an approach adapted to the interests of individuals. However, the structured approach used in a study by Zauszniewski et al. (2004) limited participants to discussing photographs provided by the group facilitator, which risks being inflexible in allowing individuals to explore the memories which are most important to them.

Issues relating to the trustworthiness of data gathered through the groups and interviews are made more complex by my changing perspective on possible social constructionist understandings of educational and interactional processes taking

198 | P a g e

place through reminiscence which evolved throughout the duration of the study.

Thus, a starting position which included an understanding of how each person’s unique perspective on and interpretation of the meaning of their life experiences will influence the way in which they recount events, which creates a potential for learning to take place through establishing consensus through dialogue, moved over time, through more in-depth analysis of the interactions taking place, to a greater awareness of the processes involved in reminiscence-based learning, whereby interactional factors became more important to understanding the ‘how’ of learning through reminiscence, than the actual material discussed. This led me from an early stance of appreciating how knowledge and skills could be shared and developed through recounting memories, to a conceptual model of reminiscence-based learning which incorporates different realms of the human story, a range of dimensions of learning, and time (past, present and future) as the context within which life experience becomes a catalyst for learning when combined with facilitative features such as person-centred teaching and multi-sensory reminiscence techniques.

In addition to the complexity of my changing perspective on the research data which resulted in reduced opportunities for respondent validation with participants so close to the end of life, there were also problematic issues relating to participants’

understandings of learning, research and reminiscence which impacted more upon the data gathered through the individual interviews than on the group sessions. Due to my determination to carry out ethically sound research which would promote the well-being of participants by providing a positive and enjoyable experience, the interview data did not reach the expected and hoped-for depth in capturing participants’ own views on their learning experiences. Thus, while each participant was able to recount aspects of the reminiscence groups which they had enjoyed and benefitted from, they were less coherent when it came to explaining what and how they had learnt from the experience. As a result, the eighth group session which took place a few weeks after the last interview in the spring of 2011, focused largely on how participants had valued taking part because of the effects it had on their well-being, rather than a clear focus on the experience of learning. While it can therefore

199 | P a g e

be said that the benefits of learning accrued through participation, claiming that participants were aware of changes taking place within them, or of what or how they were learning, is more problematic. Such an occurrence is not without precedent as adult learning literature suggests that unless techniques are used to increase awareness of learning, it can remain unconscious. Rogers, for example, describes how adults engaged in acquisition learning may not be conscious of the learning taking place as they focus on the task in hand, resulting in difficulty expressing what has been learnt: “Because they do not know that they have the knowledge, because it is unconscious knowledge, the generalisability of what is learned is not recognised”

(Rogers, 2003: 34). In addition, it would be fair to say that the majority of participants’ life experiences had not exposed them to a high level of education, which suggests the possibility that expecting them to articulate their own experience of learning was an unusual and excessive demand, for which they may not have been equipped with the necessary vocabulary or concepts of learning. Mason, for instance, (2002: 193) argues that research participants may not understand interpretations of their experiences due to the use of technical language and complex concepts. It might therefore have been opportune that my more in-depth constructionist interpretation of the learning which took place in this reminiscence group came at a later time, as involving learners in validating learning taking place in more than the cognitive dimension may have been experienced, by them, as confusing. This does, however, raise questions regarding how, in a time-limited study with older people moving towards the end of life, it would be possible to validate more complex findings. While discussing a short, plain-language summary with participants would seem to offer a viable approach, it is also possible that simplifying the findings of this study would necessitate reducing them to the point of distortion, therefore invalidating this approach to validation. Furthermore, in a study which centres on the processes involved in the subjective interpretation of experience, maintaining any certainty that participants would consistently hold an opinion on their learning experience would be difficult to justify. Instead, it might be necessary to accept “a decentring of the self away from the notion of a coherent ‘authentic’

self and towards the notions of ‘multiple subjectivities’, ‘multiple lifeworlds’ or

‘multiple layers’ to everyone’s identity” (Tennant, 2006: 20) – which is the stance

200 | P a g e

taken in this discussion in attempting to recognise the fluctuating nature of interpretations of personal experience.

Despite these difficulties over respondent validation of the more in-depth findings, the research has substantial integrity as a constructionist exploration of the learning processes taking place within this reminiscence group with this particular group of people at this specific time. This, however, raises questions around the generalisability of the findings and whether the model of transformative social learning in reminiscence outlined here would apply with another group of people, in a different care setting, at another time. Bathmaker regards the specificity of the detailed analysis of a time limited group experience as a strength, rather than a limitation: “An essential aspect of data relating to the singular and particular rather than to large samples and statistical generalisability [is that they] reveal ambiguity rather than tidy it away” (2010: 2). This idea is essential to understanding the findings of this research as a great deal of emphasis is placed on the individual approach to and experience of sharing memories, as well as to the differing quality and nature of each learning journey. However, this poses difficulties not only in regard to transferring the findings to other groups of older people in diverse settings. It also suggests the possibility of a question mark hanging over the representation of participants and the truth of what was experienced and observed. Such issues are explored by a number of authors in discussions of the validity and believability of qualitative research findings, with Kincheloe (1997) exploring issues of power in relation to representation, Wolcott (1994) presenting a sustained argument on the transformation of data to suit the researcher’s purposes, and Clough (2002) exploring similar issues around the potential of researchers to distort participants’

narratives to make the point they wish to convey. Atkinson, in discussing the presentation of data obtained through life-story interviews confirms the subjective nature of interpretations of reality where meaning and validity “may be different for the one who has told it than for the one recording it” (Atkinson, 1998: 58).

Given the complexities relating to the verifiability of my interpretations of what participants experienced in recounting personal memories, which had themselves been subject to interpretation, it may seem questionable whether the findings of this