Data Collection and Analysis

A range of data collection methods were consistently applied; audio recordings were made during studies, and later transcribed, and memos were also often written to record

observations. A single notebook was used throughout the entire research project, to consolidate observations on literature review, programming and testing. This allowed emerging codes to be identified through continual consultation of notes. All work produced by pupils during phases 2 and 3 was saved and analysed, in addition to being sent back to the

school for distribution to the pupils. This mostly consists of files made with Graphick Score,

video exports of which can be found in the electronic appendix.

In accordance with the recommendations of Glaser (1992), a process of coding for emergence was applied at all stages. Various data types are therefore analysed using the same process:

 Audio transcripts

 Written memos (during reading, programming and testing)

 Software artefacts (produced through programming)

 Musical artefacts (produced by the pupils using the software)

 Unstructured interviews with pupils and teachers

This led to concepts being established, which are presented through the reflective summaries at the end of each study (see chapters 5-7). Further coding of these concepts produced wider conceptual categories, presented at the end of each phase of research. This ultimately led to the formation of a theory grounded in this research data (see 7.9).

In total, the studies conducted during phases 2 and 3 involved approximately 200 participants, though a wider audience has been reached through dissemination at conferences, and casual observers taking part in the earlier exhibitions. This is within the target sample size given in the research proposal and ethical approval form. While it should be noted that this constitutes a small sample size in relation to other qualitative research projects, other considerations particular to this type of research model should be taken into account. In this project, I have acted as a solo researcher and programmer to undertake an interdisciplinary practice-led investigation. The value of this approach has been described in this chapter, but is also recognised by Brown (2007a, pp.7-8):

Research is often a solo venture, where the researcher undertakes all tasks from literature review, to data collection and analysis, to presentation of findings. In

75 educational research this is reinforced by the culture of ‘solo’ teacher. As a result, the software engineering skills required by SoDaR may seem a prohibitive boundary to many researchers… It is worth emphasizing the benefits of developing software engineering skills for those so inclined. Learning to program a computer changes the relationship between the person and the computer, such that the person can create what they need rather than having to accept only what features the machine provides. Also, as a mode of expression, computer languages provide both an alternative mode of thinking and opportunity to communicate ideas. These advantages apply to

software development as they do to developing skills in other modes of expression, such as water-color painting, calculus, rhyming couplets, or music notation.

This acknowledges the creative and expressive nature of the practical programming

component of SoDaR, and its relevance to pedagogic considerations such as communication. Also, Brown seems to suggest here that the educator undertaking all or part of the

programming task, even from a relatively amateur position, is gaining a relevant creative and pedagogic insight, therefore presenting an opportunity for personal and professional

development. Adopting this model has necessarily restricted the number of studies – and subsequently participants – compared to non-practical projects, as a proportion of research time is dedicated to the programming task, which forms a prominent part of the narrative of this project.

It should also be noted that issues of small sample size and subsequent concerns around generalisation are common in educational research, and many theorists have proposed allowances for this apparent deficiency (see Bassey 1998; 2001). Where the solo teacher conducts research focused on their practice and outcomes, the sample is inherently restricted to the local demographic of their school and students. If the experience of such a practitioner is of value to research communities (see 2.2.2) it must be taken into account that these outputs have a contextual dependency upon the particular practice of that individual; this is seen in action research, for example. Bridges (2003, p.190) argues that educational principles must be grounded in experiences of classroom practice or this presents a generalisation in itself:

We probably do not even fully understand our educational values until we have seen them implemented or seen the conflicts which arise in practice between different principles to which we ascribe in general abstract terms. We can come to understand

76 our philosophical principles differently by seeing them realised in practice, and hence experience can come to change the principles we hold as well as being informed by them. We can evaluate our experience by reference to our principles: and we can re- evaluate our principles by reference to our experience of their realisation in practice.

This seems to describe an equilibration between practice (and emerging experience) and educational principle, an idea to which the constructivist grounded theory-informed approach adopted for this project conforms. Where this practice is part of the research model, as in this case, a limited sample size may be expected. However, this type of focus has its own

particular value, according to some researchers:

Generalisations derived from much educational research based on large samples may be positively misleading, since findings derived from large scale studies are not necessarily reflected in the much smaller numbers that teachers are concerned with

(Foreman-Peck & Murray 2008, p.145)

With a close focus on specific situations and emerging outcomes directing practice, this qualitative model, with its smaller sample size, is akin to the complex dynamics of my chosen programming model (see 4.1.1) and therefore appropriate to an exploratory and creative project. Findings may be used, albeit with caution, to make wider recommendations for

further research. As Pring (2000, p.131)notes, ‘no one situation is unique in every respect

and therefore the action research in one classroom or school can illuminate or be suggestive

of practice elsewhere.’

I have combined the areas of practice in this project to define an approach which is exploratory yet has reasonable expectations and outcomes, with respect to the work which can be achieved by the sole researcher and the reliability of the results. This requires certain changes in situation and setting to define certain key variables, in line with the emergent grounded theory model proposed by Glaser (1992). Therefore, I address concepts which are ‘fuzzy’, yet of value in informing further research; Bassey (1998) argues that such

generalisations are inherently valuable if situational dependency is taken into account in the presentation of results. His approach is summarised by Mejía (2009, p.7):

77 1. Suppose that in a situation s1, the carrying out of action x leads to result y.

2. The fuzzy proposition is drawn that in other situations like s1it is possible that x may lead to y.

3. Suppose that a couple of replications are carried out in chosen situations s2 and s3 and it is found that in both, x leads to y.

4. The fuzzy generalisation is drawn that in other similar situations x is likely to lead to y.

5. Suppose that in a further replication at s4 it is found that x does not lead to y. 6. The researchers examine in detail not only what happened in s4, but go back through s1, s2 and s3 and try to modify the description of x to find an x’ such that in s1, s2, s3 and s4, x’ leads to y.

Similarly, Brown (2007a, p.9) recognises that this is likely to be a concern, and advises recognition of contextual dependency (see 4.1.2). Therefore, results can be presented by providing an account of the situation and considering the circumstances under which identified codes emerge. Concepts, too, are situated in these contexts, but are reinforced by emergence from multiple situations.

In order to account for any situational dependency and mitigate generalisation, presentation of each study is divided into three sections:

1. Context: What was the purpose/background of the study?

2. Method: How was the study carried out?

3. Results: What findings emerged from the study?

A discussion of the findings is combined with the results in each case, as the coding process is drawn from a variety of outcomes, including pupil work, transcriptions of audio and general observations. Wider discussion on emerging concepts observed in multiple situations occurs at intervals. These results produce a refined software artefact, but also a theoretical outcome grounded in this practical research. Crucially, this model can be replicated by other researchers using the same software artefact, or with comparable resources.

78