Student Guided Participatory Art Project:
1
Designing a Mixed-Method Study to Investigate Post-secondary Education Program Participants’ Social Inclusion in the Campus Community Student Guided Participatory Art Project: In the spring of 2012, eight UP participants took photographs to educate the campus community about their college experiences. The photographs were displayed in the A.K. Hinds University Center Gallery. Lessons Learned: • Participants captured typical college experiences: going to class, doing homework, living in residence halls, attending sporting events and working on campus. • In their art show, participants captured places where they were spatially included. UP participants often described the importance of FRIENDS. Preliminary Quantitative Results: • These results address research question 3: “How do natural supports evaluate UP participants’ social inclusion in the campus community?” Research questions: • How do UP participants conceptualize social inclusion in their campus community? • How do UP participants evaluate their social inclusion in their campus community? • How do natural supports evaluate UP participants’ social inclusion in the campus community? • What strategies for facilitating social inclusion can the UP Program develop from evaluations Design: Correlation Analysis There was a significant, negative correlation between natural supports’ perceptions of UP participant loneliness and perceptions that UP participants had supportive friends (r = -.47, p<.001), strong emotional connections (r = -.27, p<.05) and frequent positive social interactions (r = -.40, p<.001). A large neural network supporting the novel word-learning. Proposed Photovoice Training: • Narrative • Technical skills • Ethics practice • Practice & scavenger hunts Natural Support s UP Participa nts Quant. Perceptions of participants’: •Social Support •Sense of Community •Loneliness Qual. •Open ended questions •Focus group • Explica te surveys QUAL. •Photography •Semi- structured interviews Interpreta tion Survey results inform focus group and focus group results Photovoic e Analysis & Interpretation Compare & contrast results Interpreta tion of [quant + qual] + QUAL Perceived Quality of UP Participants’ Social Inclusion Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) M=4.54; N= 68 Mulitdimensional scale of Perceived Support, ‘Friends’ factor M= 4.47; N= 62; Sense of Community Index-2 ‘Membership’ factor M= 4.57; N= 62 Sense of Community Index-2 ‘Emotional Connections’ factor M= 4.5; N=62; MOS Social Support Survey, 'Positive social interaction' factor Perceived Frequency of UP Participant's Positive Social Interactio Subjective frequency: 1 (Never) 2 (Always) I w ill respectthe confidentiality of the storiesthatw ere discussed during the photovoice reflection sessions. I w ill getthe signature ofall individualsrepresented in m y photographs. I w ill notreveal the nam e(s)ofany subject(s)in m y photographs, and w ill notuse them w hen discussing orw riting aboutm y photographs. Seb MacKenzie Prohn, Academic Coordinator University Participant Program Western Carolina University
description
Seb MacKenzie Prohn , Academic Coordinator University Participant Program Western Carolina University. Research questions: How do UP participants conceptualize social inclusion in their campus community? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Student Guided Participatory Art Project:
Designing a Mixed-Method Study to Investigate Post-secondary Education Program Participants’
Social Inclusion in the Campus Community
Student Guided Participatory Art Project: In the spring of 2012, eight UP participants took photographs to educate the campus community about their college experiences. The photographs were displayed in the A.K. Hinds University Center Gallery.
Lessons Learned:• Participants captured typical college experiences: going to class, doing homework, living in residence halls, attending sporting events and working on campus.
• In their art show, participants captured places where they were spatially included. UP participants often described the importance of FRIENDS.
Preliminary Quantitative Results: • These results address research question 3:
“How do natural supports evaluate UP participants’ social inclusion in the campus community?”
Research questions:• How do UP participants conceptualize social inclusion
in their campus community?
• How do UP participants evaluate their social inclusion in their campus community?
• How do natural supports evaluate UP participants’ social inclusion in the campus community?
• What strategies for facilitating social inclusion can the UP Program develop from evaluations
Design:
Correlation AnalysisThere was a significant, negative correlation between natural supports’ perceptions of UP participant loneliness and perceptions that UP participants had supportive friends (r = -.47, p<.001), strong emotional connections (r = -.27, p<.05) and frequent positive social interactions (r = -.40, p<.001). A large neural network supporting the novel word-learning.
Proposed Photovoice Training:• Narrative • Technical skills
• Ethics practice
• Practice & scavenger hunts
Natural Supports
UP Participants
Quant.Perceptions of participants’:•Social Support•Sense of Community •Loneliness
Qual.•Open ended questions•Focus group
• Explicate surveys
QUAL.•Photography•Semi-structured interviews
InterpretationSurvey results inform focus group and focus group results
PhotovoiceAnalysis & Interpretation
Compare & contrast results
Interpretation of [quant + qual] + QUAL
Perceived Quality of UP Participants’ Social Inclusion
Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
M=4.54; N= 68 Mulitdimensional scale of Perceived Support, ‘Friends’ factor
M= 4.47; N= 62; Sense of Community Index-2 ‘Membership’ factor
M= 4.57; N= 62Sense of Community Index-2 ‘Emotional Connections’ factor
M= 4.5; N=62; MOS Social Support Survey, 'Positive social interaction' factor
Perceived Frequency of UP Participant's Positive Social Interactions
Subjective frequency: 1 (Never) 2 (Always)
I will respect the confidentiality of the stories that were discussed during the photovoice reflection sessions.
I will get the signature of all individuals represented in my photographs.
I will not reveal the name(s) of any subject(s) in my photographs, and will not use them when discussing or writing about my photographs.
Seb MacKenzie Prohn, Academic CoordinatorUniversity Participant ProgramWestern Carolina University
