Changes Made
-Responding to the first iteration of this intervention, I decided to be more specific about the assigning of roles within the group. Instead of students choosing their own roles, I asked students within each group to arrange themselves alphabetically and take on the corresponding role from the list of roles. See Slide 7 of the revised presentation below.
-Next, in thinking of my method of observation and Naturalistic Inquiry – I had a wonderful conversation with Tim during workshop 2 where we spoke at length about what it is that I should be observing and are these things even observable? How does one even observe friendship? Is it about body language? Or is it something else entirely?
We talked about aspects like trustworthiness (Guba & Lincoln, 1985) and the role of the researcher as someone who actively participates and thus also influences the process of observation. Initially I thought I would benefit by observing from afar – because in that sense I (perhaps) affect the group the least. However, in doing so I (through this conversation with Tim) realised that I’m making a series of assumptions and conclusions about my observations. Perhaps I need to get closer to the groups. But in getting closer – there is also an acknowledgement of me an actor in the presence influencing how they behave and interact with each other. Perhaps that is okay.
Data Collected
Method of Collection: Observation from closer. I followed a few groups around to really see and listen to the internal dynamics. Data was collected through images, videos and note taking. See link to Padlet of Student work from the session.
Reflection
– Around Group Dynamics: It was good to see student take on roles they perhaps may not have done before. Being closer to the groups gave me a better sense of their engagement with the task and with each other. This was definitely a step up from my observations in the previous sessions (thank you Tim!). There is also a clear difference to me (the observer) in the engagement across the groups in the two rotations. I want to be aware of making a generalisation here and/or the transferability (Guba & Lincoln, 1985) of my claims, but in a small sense – was really good to see. See snippets below:
References
1.Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. India: SAGE Publications.