The research studies reported in this thesis extend over a 5-year period of my own growth and development as a researcher and teacher. Two themes run in parallel. The first theme was improvement in skills in implementing objective research to assess behaviour change resulting from childcare and teacher training programmes. The second theme was the clarification and explanation of my own role and behaviour as a trainer of teachers and childcare workers. The theoretical framework used for the objective research was applied behaviour analysis and the one used to explain my behaviour was Argyris and Schon's (1974) theory of action with its two different theories-in-use. Model I is where people strive to satisfy the governing variables of defining goals and trying to achieve them; winning not losing; minimising negative feelings; and being rational. This creates conditions where only single-loop learning is possible. Single-loop learning is where people adopt new actions to realise their governing variables. However double-loop learning, where we learn to change the governing variables themselves, is only possible with a Model II theory-in-use i.e. where people strive to give and get valid information, make free and informed choices and generate internal commitment to the choices. During Study I my own behaviour as a researcher and teacher could be explained in terms of Model I. I adopted a rigorous research model for the research and a traditional authoritarian model for the teaching. However I perceived a mismatch between what I said (Model II) and what I did (Model I), also I did not like the 'behavioural world' my research activities had created. I wanted to be an effective teacher and an effective researcher yet the two seemed incompatible. The rigorous research methods I was using to evaluate my teaching were limiting the quality of learning and teaching. In Study 1 the effects of training 8 childcare students in two childcare centres using Specific Instruction, Graphic Feedback and Daily Verbal Feedback were evaluated for three caregiver behaviours: non-verbal, verbal and participation (in activities, childcare and housework). This first study showed that when the unilaterally controlling methods of rigorous research were combined with authoritarian teaching, conditions were produced which explained only how people would behave under similar circumstances of control and generalisation was limited. In Study 2 the effects of training 8 childcare supervisors to train their staffs in eight childcare centres using a training package which included Negotiated Instruction, Practice and Feedback were evaluated for three caregiver behaviours: talking with children and adults; socio-emotional (positive and negative); and participation (in activities, childcare and housework). During Study 2 I tried to make the transition from Model I to Model II and moved to teaching where I shared control through negotiating the curriculum and research which included social validation measures. However on reflecting on the outcomes of Study 2 I realised that I was still continuing to do Model I research (where I unilaterally controlled and master-minded the research design, goals and procedures) whereas in contrast in my teaching role I had simply adopted a role which was opposite of Model I (i.e. I had handed control over to the participants). However Study 2 showed that when rigorous research was combined with a negotiated curriculum (unilateral control and shared control) more generalisation occurred. Results indicated that childcare supervisors could effect significant changes in their own behaviour after a training package of negotiated instruction, feedback and practice. Further, they could transfer skills learned to their staffs. These changes were only achieved when: (1) A mismatch could be shown between what the supervisors and staff said and what they did and they judged the behaviour to be important and desirable; (2) Feedback on performance was provided to the supervisors by the experimenter and to the staffs by their supervisors; (3) Opportunities for comparisons of performance were provided (either within-subjects or between-subject); and (4) Supervisors could negotiate to learn the specific skills they needed e.g. how to give positive and negative feedback to staff. Following Study 2 I continued to try to match my espoused views with my practice in my teaching and integrate teaching and research within a Model II framework. I felt that teaching and research need not be separate activities if the data generated could be used for clients' learning and skills learned generalised to the 'real' world. I therefore taught an exploratory course involving aspects of self-control by participants and shared control over course goals and methods. Experience in teaching this course suggested that when socially significant goals were targeted and students collected their own baseline data, data were generated which course members could use to understand, and in some cases solve, their own problems. Creating conditions which fostered psychological ownership of goals and methods for changing behaviour (giving clients choices; working on behaviours clients judged important and desirable; creating favourable attitudes towards training; and giving clients responsibility for implementation), appeared to enhance the occurrence of generalisation. The thesis, then, arrives at two fundamental propositions. The first is that the process of conducting rigorous applied research (e.g. research-determined and specified hypotheses, predetermined measures, research design etc.) reinforces the discovery and invention of single-loop solutions only. The second is that research and training programmes that attempt to embody Argyris' (1974) Model II theory-in-use will be more effective for developing conditions where a new set of skills can be produced as well (double-loop learning).
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/276856 |
| Date | January 1985 |
| Creators | O'Rourke, Maris L. (Maris Lilian) |
| Publisher | ResearchSpace@Auckland |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated., http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm, Copyright: The author |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds