List of Tables
Chapter 3: Research method as eco-pedagogista practice
3.7 Data generation
3.7.1 Data generation – educator hat
The primary data generation in this study happened in arts-based inquiry workshops. The secondary data phase involved individual interviews with learners and educators about their environmental change work.
The data generated across these interactions can be described on the spectrum between process and artefact: process relates to the conditions and agency under which artefacts (workshop creations as well as interviews) were produced. Artefacts here refer to ideas, questions, images, brainstorms, drawings, pieces of writing, improvised skits, ideas
expressed. The capturing of these artefacts as well as the personal reflection by myself constitute the pedagogical documentation.
There are two interrelated emergent, but distinct, dimensions present in the data. The arts- based inquiries were both learning encounters, led by Anna the educator, for the participants and myself (learning together about water) as well as a co-engaged research process, actively observed by the pedagogista, with the participants about learning in their lives more generally (learning about learning about water).
3.7.2 Phase 1: Co-making workshops
The case studies reported on in this research (see Chapter 5 and Chapter 6) took form through a process of co-making with educators of the organisations. They thus emerged looking quite different. The one case involving Grade 4 learners had higher numbers of learners and much more direct involvement by the educators. The other case with learners from Grade 10 and 11 included a group of 13 learners and involved one co-educator from the organisation working alongside me. The flow and arc of our workshops differed across case studies: Case Study 2 looked more like a continuous process of arts-based inquiry in response to burning questions, while in Case Study 1, I engaged arts-based responses to ‘the journey of water’ more
generally but no less generatively. What was common was a collaborative inquiry into water.
The co-making refers to both planning and enacting the workshops where the co-educators and myself improvised in and around a planned lesson outline. We remained grounded in the purpose of learning about water, responsively and worked with the tools and modes that facilitated that.
In the sections that follow, I describe the emergent encounters with each organisation.
3.7.2.1 Case 1
For this case study I collaborated with the South African Education and Environment
Programme (making contact with this organisation was described in section 3.4). Based on an agreement that I would comply with the organisation’s volunteer code of conduct, I was given permission (see Appendix 10.3.1) to collaborate with this group of learners and their educators.
Note on research ethics: I drafted letters for the learners’ parents which the organisation sent out. The first draft of this letter was shortened on advice of the organisation (Appendix
10.3.2). The letter informed the parents that I was a researcher actively engaged and
observing learning activities related to water related themes. These activities would be designed in alignment with the regular programme with a focus on reading practice but include some arts-activities. I would be working with video footage, photographs and artistic artefacts. (Under the organisational code of conduct, these would not be shared outside of the researcher and the group of learners.) The letters requested signed consent from the parents.
I joined a few sessions to observe and get to know the learners. When I was introduced, I explained that I was going to do some water related activities. While the learners’
participation in the programme was overall voluntary – an extra-curricular programme, their encounter with me in this programme was organised via their educators and was thus not necessarily voluntary. However, the activities all included space in which the learners could decide on their level of participation, a feature of arts-based engagement rather than a one-on- one interview (Dockett and Perry, 2005) – for example, not to participate in a skit or not to finish a drawing was without consequence.
The programme organisers, educators and myself collaborated in designing workshop sessions in which learners would read a water related text, diagram or information piece related to their curricula. We would then facilitate arts-activity through which the learners would respond to what they had read (using theatre skits, drawing, simple writing and
movement). The activities all related to the journey of water. Thus, my intervention impacted only for a short time in the overall session. The educators and I facilitated this intervention in the final 15-20 minutes of the overall session (1.5 hours). The rest of the lesson comprised a routine ‘circle time’ discussing tools for learning how to read and ‘reading time’ where they sat together and read books with an educator. I worked with 20-25 learners over three
afternoons for four weeks, facilitating these short arts-based responses to their reading. Table 1 below charts the lesson plan over 6 sessions. These lessons were repeated in 2019.
Table 1: Workshop outline Case Study 1 Establishe
d phases of the lessons
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6
Circle time Making rain
Circle time
Dance circle
Curious question:
where does water come from?
Curious question:
how do we collect water in different places across South Africa?
Story
telling Circle time Circle time
Team
reading General
reading Reading the water cycle
Reading water purification
General
reading Reading Reading
Creative
exchange Bucket improvisatio nal skit
Drawing Water purification machine
Writing amanzi [water]
Performin g the journey of water
Watchin g our videos
As shown in Table 1, in the first session the learners enacted a short skit about water in their community, in groups using a bucket. During the second and third session we engaged with information on the journey of water and then responded to that information using drawing (Session 2: Read/draw) and machine skits (Session 3: Read/move). In Session 4 we did a chain story in circle time and after the reading session, they each wrote five sentences about water drawing on the amanzi [water] dictionary of words we had collected over the previous sessions (Read/write). In the fifth session we performed an extended journey of water using song, sound, movement and props. The sixth session included watching videos of the previous sessions.
While the close collaboration with educators on this project was crucial for the effectiveness of our workshops and the familiarity of the learners, I should note the tensions that related to this collaboration. The nature of the pedagogical engagements that I had planned, and their contrast to outcomes-oriented curriculum, regulated school institutional space and time, is an ethical consideration that needed to be negotiated. A conversation I had with an educator brought this notion to the surface:
As I explained the lesson plan the educator said to me, “children do better when they know the reason for what they are doing it and what is expected of them”. I felt she
was saying two things here: 1. I am uneasy about this idea, it does not sit nicely with what we normally ask from children. Where is the hidden test, where is the model of how it should be, how do we know if it is right or wrong? 2. You, Anna, need to be more clear about what you are telling me, I won’t be able to do this if you are not clear and the children will be confused. As our conversation continued, I realised that this was a negotiation of cultures within an educational space.
According to her two requirements: reasons and expectations, I said, let’s think these through together. Our discussion surfaced the following.
The expectation showed an important tension, the tension between open-ended engagements (particular characteristic of play) and closed-ended engagements (particular of much that I have picked up happens at the school – test oriented, and coaches wanting very precise instructions). So we negotiated. I said, what is expected of them is that they tell us a story using their bodies and the bucket prop. The
educator responded, OK they tell us a story about the uses of water in their community. I said, hang on, let’s make it less specific and say about water in their community: Ngamanzi eCommunity. I moved into the discussion about how often we tell learners to save water and that is all. The educator agreed and explained, yes but we do not get the chance to tell them why.
Onto the reasons: here I explained that we would like to see a bit about how water fits into children’s existing worlds. As citizens in this world, they come with a kind of knowledge about water in their lives and we would like to understand that a bit. Next week we will bring the curriculum. As I was explaining this, I found it hard to hold onto what I was thinking. I felt uncomfortable about this being a white person’s interest in understanding these children/s watery worlds. The educator came back to me and asked, so are we going to group them by community or what? Because we have many different communities. We eventually said no and decided to group them randomly. So while I felt like I struggled for the words to say this I was re-reminded about how important a step this was.
This conversation while it felt challenging, and on the side and not part of the main work, was actually vitally important to what it means to be thinking through these kinds of pedagogies of play and ecopedagogies within existing school cultures.
The negotiation also had race and class elements to it. In some ways, I was a white middle class woman and my psychologist pointed out that there might have been some of “well you are already up the social ladder, and we’re still trying to get there, to get these kids there so don’t come here with your hippie ideas…”. This is important, because it is also perhaps one of the mechanisms that produces a particular attitude to the school space, this space is for getting, learning to behave the way the middle class does… ?? Perhaps.
And yet, when we had finished the lesson, done the plays and the reading, the educators were beaming with excitement. They said the kids had so much fun they were happy to go on and on and on. One learner was an absolute hoot, he had the whole class in hysterics. This learner had been a shy one before now, they did not know he had it in him. I am sure this is also a function of the language, that these learners were able to do their little skits. They also said that they noticed some learners did not like the skits very much. (Reflection from 9 April 2019: Return to SAEP workshop)
This reflection relates to the critical process of building working and active collaboration with the educators. This was a moment that I welcomed as a significant way in which I could improve my communication. However, I also needed to stand my ground, not being too changeable in relation to the anxieties I perceived amongst people who I was working with.
Entering into collaboration with the co-educators involved standing my ground and practising careful clarity about why I had suggested various features of the lessons.
At each session I had a video camera. Before I turned it on, I asked permission from the learners. They never objected to me turning it on. There was great curiosity about seeing themselves on camera. By alerting them to when I turned the camera on, I was inviting them into the filming processes. I imagine and hope this curiosity was an indicator of their consent for the filming, though I cannot be sure about this. In this case, my ethics of care of course extended to keeping this video footage confidential and continuing a deep respect for how I used the videos in my analysis.
A note on ethics regarding requesting consent at the end of our sessions: After the final workshop, I brought a short set of video clips about our time together for the learners to see themselves in our activities. At this session, with a very simple survey (Appendix 10.3.4) I asked them to try and remember for each session what they liked, what they did not like and
what they learned. This short evaluative survey did not work out so well as I think the expectation that they write was too much in the short time we had together. At the end I asked if I could have their permission to use the videos and drawings in my university project. If their answer was yes, they should tick and if no, they should draw an X. All learners drew ticks.
3.7.2.2 Case 2
I connected with an organiser from the Beyond Expectations Environmental Project at an Environmental Education Trust meeting in Cape Town. I was invited to their office in Philippi to talk about my workshop ideas and I found out a bit more about the organisation.
The notion of engaged research was difficult to put across and I was alerted to a number of ideas that informed how my role was received. One person said to me “let’s see what BEEP can do to help you with your research”. This made me feel uncomfortable as I was holding onto the idea that my research would rather be aligning with the needs of the organisation.
Another organiser admitted to me that one of the organisers was doing his masters and had asked that they do not give me all the information. This alerted me to the fact that I was being understood as someone who was ‘taking’ information. In quite a number of conversations I tried to relay the intention that this would be a study of process and practice with the learners rather than studying the learners themselves. Being alerted to these perceptions was important for understanding the possibility of realising what I intended and what I would enact through my position as a researcher.
A meeting with the organisers revealed that they were interested in learning more about water at the time of water crisis in the city. I shared my plan for the inquiry with them and they approved of it. We arranged a meeting with the high school learners in the public library.
For the first meeting, the learners sat around a table in the library attentive to what I had to say. I felt comfortable and excited by this gathering. I explained to them that I was a PhD student and as part of that, I was interested in going on a learning journey together with them.
There were two important moments in this meeting that coloured its quality. One learner told me with an air of authority and outrage, “you know, in this neighbourhood, we go to sleep to the sound of bullets”. I remember dealing with conflicting feelings here. While I am not ignorant of the violence in the area, I am ignorant in the sense that I do not have to live with it on a daily basis. I also know that many white people know so little about this that they
disregard its impact. I do not remember my reaction exactly but I remember listening to this as an important intervention and expression of agency on the part of the learners relating to our race class difference. They needed to let me know what the situation was. I could have been scared off by this, I could have responded with I know all about that (which is not true because I have never known it as a daily reality). Instead I had to understand that statement as part of our first meeting together, the play with boundaries that would establish what is possible or what is really allowed in this encounter.
Another outspoken learner said, “Are we going to get certificates?”. This took me by surprise more so than the previous comment. Despite the fact that I felt very suspicious about
certificates and the problems they can cause, I could not deny that I had privileges because of the certificates I had received. Of course, acknowledgement, celebration and recognition would be important. In the phase of school life when much is organised by awards, it is important to include means of recognition.
Also at this meeting, I gave each student a written invitation including information about the water inquiry and consent forms (see letter in Appendix 10.4.3) and informed consent letters for their parents (see letter in Appendix 10.4.2) and requested that these be returned at our first session which would happen a week later.
We agreed to have our four meetings – which turned into ten meetings due to various disruptions and inconsistent participants – in the local public library (see table 2 below). I received permission from the librarians without complication. We proceeded to have ten rich sessions inquiring into water.
A note on ethics and participation: By the fourth session I had received 13 informed consent forms signed by parents and learners. One or two workshops in the holidays that were joined by new visiting learners were screened out from the research analysis.
A reflection from the first workshop reveals an overwhelming feeling of the existing ruling relations that may have been present in our workshop.
It must be quite strange on a number of levels. This white woman arrives in your community and suggests that you do an exploration of water. You are a high school learner, in grade 11, you know that this is the time of life that can ‘make or break’ the rest of your life. Because this woman is white, she might have connections. Because
she comes from a university, she may be able to give us a certificate. Ok, I’ll see what these workshops are all about.
I, this white woman, felt a bit silly trying to explain, trying to impose the idea of an open-ended inquiry. Quite rightly, the fears generated in some learners were that they may not know what is going on, or they do not understand clearly where this is going, or that they may lose interest. While I have come with the admirable intention of having a learner directed inquiry deriving from their concerns, it is potentially unhelpful for this phase of life, especially in the context of a new and potentially fragile relationship across race, across age, across the space. Do they always know where they are going as they learn in the classroom? Do they direct that learning? Is it important? I guess in the short term it is. (Researcher journal. 12 March 2018) This reflection captures the trickiness of social relations, pedagogical paradigms and
contextual pressures. As Pacini-Ketchabaw et al. (2014, p. 180) note, “[e]verything we do in our practices is embedded in relationship of power, including inequities between educators and children and those that can emerge between children…”. It was an intuition into the reality that educational paradigms and ideas we aspire to must contend with the contextual relations and ruling relations with which they come in contact.
A note on ethics – reflecting on what we were doing together: The workshops were not attended frequently by all but there were a core group of 5 consistent learners. While this was disappointing on one level, on another level it indicated that these workshops were seen as voluntary.7 Each session included activities that stood as invitations rather than compulsory participation. Each session ended with a recap from me of what we had done and an attempt to check in and see that everyone was OK. There were never any expressions of
disappointment but these may have been expressed in other ways such as absenteeism.
Table 2: Workshop outline Case Study 2 workshops
Dates Process Details Activity form
12 March
19 March Matters of
concern Co-defining matters of concern from our position as inhabitants actively experiencing our urban environments
Individual reflection through writing and discussion
7 Responsibility and accountability by participation in engaged generative research is something that ought to be theorised more. Arguably, one is reducing harm by making it voluntary, but if we are offering significant and generative processes for which it is beneficial to attend consistently, it could be reducing harm to individuals and the group, to insist on regular attendance.