ABSTRACT
This study explores the application of the DREAM methodology for course assessment in three South East Asian universities aiming to embed sustainability and sustainable development goals (SDGs) in multiple academic disciplines enabled by information and communication technologies (ICTs). A mixing of content and thematic analysis was used, which aligns with the underpinning philosophy of the Diagnosing, Reviewing/Reflecting, Explaining, Assessing, Managing (DREAM) methodology. The DREAM methodology integrates five processes, starting from diagnosing, to reviewing/reflecting, explaining, assessing, and, finally, managing. Results show that merging semantic and latent themes has contributed to uncovering what messages students' narratives convey and provided a space for focusing both on the surface and explicit meanings of the data as well as on theory building and policy making. They also show the effectiveness of the DREAM methodology in constructing new knowledge and generating meaningful interpretations and suggestions to teacher educators and other academic teaching staff, as well as higher education institutions' policymakers and planners.
ABSTRACT
Quantitative and qualitative approaches to planning and evaluation in education for sustainable development have often been treated by practitioners from a single research paradigm. This paper discusses the utility of mixed method evaluation designs which integrate qualitative and quantitative data through a sequential transformative process. Sequential mixed method data collection strategies involve collecting data in an iterative process whereby data collected in one phase contribute to data collected in the next. This is done through examples from a programme addressing the 'Reorientation of University Curricula to Address Sustainability (RUCAS): A European Commission Tempus-funded Programme'. It is argued that the two approaches are complementary and that there are significant gains from combining both. Using methods from both research paradigms does not, however, mean that the inherent differences among epistemologies and methodologies should be neglected. Based on this experience, it is recommended that using a sequential transformative mixed method evaluation can produce more robust results than could be accomplished using a single approach in programme planning and evaluation focussed on education for sustainable development.
