Sampling

56

facilitation and the collaborative efforts of the PBL participants were derived from the empirical data that emerged, and not prior to the study. This is consistent with Merriam’s (2009) conclusion that:

“Typically, findings inductively derived from the data in a qualitative study are in the form of themes, categories, typologies, concepts, tentative hypotheses, and even theory about a particular aspect of practice” (p. 16).

57

A number of scholars (Creswell, 2007; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002) have identified several types of purposeful sampling and the common ones are (1) typical sampling; (2) unique sampling; (3) maximum variation sampling; (4) convenience sampling; (5) snowball or chain sampling; (6) theoretical sampling; (7) criterion sampling and (8) combination or mixed sampling.

3.2.1 Site selection and participants

In this study, the process of social construction of knowledge was investigated in the context of a PBL environment. This necessitated a purposive sampling with the primary criteria being the participants were engaged in the PBL process. Literature review, as highlighted in Chapter 2, provided the guidelines for identifying a PBL site that would be suitable for this research. Barrows (1996) suggested that a core PBL model has the following general characteristics: (1) learning is student-centred, (2) learning is facilitated in a small group, (3) the tutor functions as a guide, (4) real life problems are the starting point for learning before any preparation or study has occurred, (5) the skills and knowledge that are required to solve the problems are acquired in context and (6) new information is gathered through self-directed learning. Dolman et al. (2005) drew a similar observation and proposed that there are essential features in a PBL process and they are (1) realistic problem being used as a stimulus for learning, (2) tutors function as facilitators to scaffold students’ learning and (3) collaborative environment as stimulus for interactions.

The above PBL criteria as well as Stahl’s (2000) were used as an initial guide to identify an information-rich PBL site where the process of social construction of knowledge was likely to happen. This has led to the selection of the instructional technology course offered in a master’s program in the School of Education in a public university in Malaysia. The instructional technology course was offered as a core subject to students

58

who were pursuing the masters in instructional technology program, or as an elective for several other masters programs in the School of Education. The primary reasons for the selection of this site for the study were that (1) the course was conducted in an essentially PBL environment based on the criteria set by Barrows (1996) and Dolman et al. (2005), (2) the course was designed to help students develop a complex, multi-faceted and situated form of knowledge known as TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Hence, the learning process was constructivist in nature. (3) The overall milieu and activities of the course was based on Nonaka and his colleagues’ SECI model of knowledge creation (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 2004; Nonaka & Nishiguchi, 2001) and that knowledge sharing and construction can be effectively cultivated through the process of socialization, externalization, combination and internalization (Tee & Karney, 2009). In short, such a site would have a high possibility for the process of social construction of knowledge to occur, and open to be studied.

As the program was in the midst of being phased out, the said course had only three students. J, R and F, were enrolled in this 14-week course. J was a high school English teacher, R was a full-time student whose previous job experience included the design of science educational courseware, and F was the principal of an elementary school which was well equipped with ICT facilities. Both J and F were experienced teachers with each having at least 10 years of teaching experience. The PBL group was formed comprise these three students with the course instructor serving as the dedicated PBL facilitator.

This course had been offered in the past three years with the instructor serving as the PBL facilitator.

The 14-week course was divided into two major sections and the students had to work on two PBL cases (known as Case One and Case Two among the students) over these 14

59

weeks, where seven weeks were allocated for each of the PBL cases. For each of the seven week section, the first three-week segment was designed to give students time to define and conceptualize the problems they had decided to work on as a PBL group. At this PBL stage, the participants worked through a number of tentative hypotheses (i.e.

possible root causes of the problem) and in the process they were being made aware of the knowledge gaps that exist in order for them to address the problem. These gaps included a list of learning issues the participants had collaboratively formulated for further research as well as evidence or data that had to be collected to validate their arguments or reasoning. The second two-week segment was for the group to consider different solutions, propose and select a solution. The third one-week segment was for the group to implement the selected solution in a pilot or full-blown situation. The fourth and final one-week segment was for the participants to more formally present and discuss the process and outcome of the entire learning cycle. Throughout each of the seven-week durations, the participants worked iteratively through collaborations and self-directed activities. This research dealt with Case Two of the course in which the participants worked on a real life problem that the teachers in F’s school were experiencing in regards to the integration of technology into the teachers’ teaching and learning in the school.

TPACK is an integrated knowledge and it consists of mutually reinforcing relationships among its three elements of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (Koehler &

Mishra, 2005). Briefly, content knowledge (C) refers to the subject matter that is to be learned. Technologies (T) include the standard technologies such as chalk and blackboard and extend to more current technologies such as the Internet and related digital devices and modalities which make information accessible. Pedagogy (P) is the process and methods of teaching and learning, including the strategies for evaluating student learning.

The interactions among the three elements are vital in determining the optimal strategy to

60

promote students learning and understanding. In the context of this course, TPACK was developed by having the PBL participants to work through a real life problem of practice which had the following characteristics: (1) The problem had to be directly related to teaching and learning (as oppose to say, policy or management issues), (2) the problem had to be complex, that is, the problem did not have a single, simplistic answer, and (3) the problem preferably had to be common or similar to what was being faced by at least two other participants in the group.

The course was conducted using an improvised PBL approach. The improvisations were attempts to scaffold the learning process of the students who were new to the PBL process. Most of these students were more accustomed to the traditional method of lecture-based learning in their previous educational experience. Additionally, these improvisations were made in order to deal with the large class of students where the instructor did not have the facility of having a dedicated facilitator to a small group of students as is typically practiced in medical schools where PBL are conducted (Hmelo-Silver, 2009).

The key aspect of improvisation was the use of guided instruction. This included the use of (1) mini lectures which were given on a just-in-time basis (Hmelo-Silver, 2009), (2) selected readings and (3) recommended approaches to the process of problem solving, for instance, Bransford and Steins’ (2002) model of problem solving process whereby participants were encouraged to identify gaps in their knowledge in order to bridge the gaps between what they knew and what they needed to know. Though there were some improvisations, the approach remained essentially PBL because it was based on a real life, complex problem, solved through a combination of facilitated sessions, collaborative interactions and self-directed activities. As discussed in the beginning of Section 3.2.1,

61

the approach had all the general characteristics of a core PBL model highlighted by Barrows (1996) and Dolman et al. (2005).

3.2.2 Informed consent

Consent was sought from all the three students who enrolled in the course and each was given a consent statement describing the intent of the research, their rights and obligations as a student participant (Appendix 3). All the three students gave full consent to being participants in the research.