Prior to selecting a school, I faced the dilemma of finding teachers working in a local primary school who shared my enthusiasm for developing a community of learners, who were prepared to participate with me in this action research, and whose Principal supported these collaborative research initiatives. Selection was thus consistent with purposive sampling (Berg, 2001). In my efforts to find such a sample, I took on a facilitation role with the Ministry of Education to work on their project
entitled The New Zealand Curriculum Exemplars. On the advice from the Massey
University Human Ethics Committee (MUHEC) in October 2001, I made it known to the Principals and teachers of the participating schools that, while I would be working as the Project Facilitator, I would also be identifying a potential site for my own research. During 2002, I worked with teachers and children in four local primary schools to develop Social Studies Exemplars which enabled me to assess their interest in, and suitability for, my research. The proposal to conduct this research was submitted to MUHEC and approved in Protocol 02/29 in May 2002. I was confident that one of the schools, Jubilee School, (a pseudonym) would make a good research site with its promotion of innovative curriculum delivery that fostered learning partnerships in “relationship-driven teaching” (Rogers & Renard, 1999, p. 34). I made initial telephone contact with the Principal in July 2002 to suggest Jubilee School as a site for my study. A follow-up meeting was planned to discuss an informal proposal, including the collaborative roles required of teachers who were interested in the idea of developing their classrooms as a community of learners. From our discussion, it was evident that my proposal was within the school’s “zone of accepted practice” (Zeni, 2001, p.158). I wrote to the Board of Trustees (BOT) inviting their school to participate in the research (see Appendix A1). On advice from the lead researcher of the Exemplar Project, I indicated to the Ministry of Education my intent to make one of the Project’s schools my research site, assuring them that, as my exemplar work in that school was complete, there would be no conflict of interest.
4.2.1 Description of the school
Jubilee School is a large New Zealand urban state primary school in a provincial city, catering for over 500 children from Years 1 - 8. Jubilee has a multicultural roll
comprising 56% European New Zealanders, 30% Māori (indigenous people), 8% Pasifika and 6% other. For professional development purposes, the school is divided into two multi-level clusters run by two deputy principals. For planning purposes, the school is divided into five teams each with its own leader. A set of value statements prioritised in each of the five teams is displayed in the school’s entrance foyer as an
expression of each team’s tūrangawaewae or place to stand.
Children at Jubilee School came from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. The school has a decile three ranking reflecting the low socioeconomic status of individual families. (Decile rankings range from 1 to 10, 1 being a very low, and 10 a very high socioeconomic status). The high proportion of transient families in the local community brought a range of social problems to the school. The present research was conducted within the Year 3 / 4 team of Jubilee School. These research classrooms were situated together in an L shaped block of five classrooms connected by an external covered walkway. Rooms One and Two were connected through an internal coat bay and by a long narrow room to the rear. Rooms Three and Four, on the other side of the L shape, were connected by a semi-enclosed coat bay. The fifth classroom sat empty in the corner of the L shape but was used later in the year as a new entrant room. This classroom block was separate from the school’s main building and bordered a grassed playing field.
4.2.2 The participants
Once the BOT had consented to the school becoming a site for this research (see Appendix A2), I suggested that a third party invite the teachers to participate in this study so as to minimise the possibility of coercion. This offer was not taken up by Hugh (pseudonym for the retiring principal). Instead he advised all the teachers in the school about the general nature of this research, indicating that, if it were to proceed, it would be situated within the Year 3 / 4 team. Hugh asked for volunteers to teach in that team as an expression of interest to participate in the study:
We let people know that if you want to work in that team, you’re going to be doing this research. Rick has always been keen…and Tiare wanted to be in it… Amy and Kelly wanted to be there too, and there are a couple who want to tag along in any way they can. And they’d love to be involved. And they see it as a huge opportunity. (11.12.02HughINT:22)
On receipt of the names of four teachers who had expressed interest in the research, an Information Sheet was sent to them inviting their participation, and extending an invitation to discuss the research (see Appendix A3). With this offer taken up, I met with the four teachers for two hours in one of the teacher’s home in December 2002, where they were meeting to discuss the values that would unify their team. At this meeting, I explained the research aims, including a brief explanation of a community of learners. I also explained the emergent design of this collaborative research, and its ethical obligations. I explained that I could not assure complete anonymity because other teachers at the school would know their identity. I also described the difficulty protecting their right to privacy in the classroom.
The teachers raised a range of issues, including concerns about their ability to collaborate in action research. One teacher revealed her fear of having another adult in the classroom. Another teacher expressed enthusiasm for this research which was seen as a means for professional and personal learning. Two other teachers raised the issue of me having the expertise and them learning about developing a community of
learners from me. On that day, these issues became topics of conversation, during
which some of the potential conflicts of role, discussed in the previous chapter, were raised. This meeting enabled me to listen to their concerns, as well as to demonstrate my appreciation of their expertise and my belief in our joint participation as a means for all of us to learn. This was the first of many professional conversations with the teachers, after which I gave them their Consent Forms and asked that these be posted back to me (see Appendix A4).
This preliminary meeting with the teachers created opportunities for them to talk about the research and in so doing, to begin to understand what it was about so that they could give their “educated consent” to participate (David et al., 2001). Once the teachers had consented, we worked together to design a sequence of learning activities to support children to understand the nature of the research “in order for them to make ‘choices’ about participation” (p. 347). These activities, led by me, used the six thinking hats (de Bono, 1985) which was a familiar strategy to the children, and which supported discussion about the research (see Appendix A5). I also built on an analogy children made to a community being like honeycomb, inspired by the hexagonal shapes used to create a jigsaw of the knowledge, skills and
values each child brought to and could share in their classroom. These activities also integrated with their Social Studies learning about community, culture, rights and responsibilities. At the end of these sessions, Information Sheets (see Appendix A6), and a child-friendly pamphlet (see Appendix A6a), and a Consent Form (see Appendix A7) were given to the children. Information Sheets and Consent Forms for parents/carers were also given to the children to take home (see Appendix A8 and A9). An invitation was included for parents/carers to discuss the study with me: an offer not taken up. A post-box was placed in each classroom for children to return their own and their parents’ completed Consent Forms. Consent was treated as a process of ongoing negotiation by seeking regularly teachers’ and children’s permission prior to talking or working with them. In addition, pamphlets were designed mid way through the research for each class to illustrate new forms of joint participation and to prompt ongoing discussion between children, teachers and parents. A consent form was signed by the transcriber agreeing to confidentiality (see Appendix A10).
Both parents/carer and child had to consent to participate in the study. If a child was non-consenting, subsequent to their parent/carer permission, that child’s non-consent stood. A 61% overall response rate (n = 73) came from a possible 120 students, of which 80% were positive from both parent/carer and child. Of the overall responses, 20% (n = 15) were negative from a parent/carer, a child or both to being observed and/or to participating in a taped interview. As observational notes and tape-recorded interviews were essential, these 15 children were not considered for inclusion. This gave a pool of 58 children across the four classes, from which 16 target children could be selected. Non-consent to participate meant that these children still participated in the class programme but they were not targeted for observation.
In order to ensure representativeness of gender, ethnicity and ability, the teachers selected the four target children from the consenting pool of children in their class. Across the four classes, seven children were female and nine were male. The mix of
ethnicity included ten European New Zealanders, three Māori, two Samoans and one
Iraqi. Their abilities also varied across curriculum areas, and all were perceived to be confident to talk with me. Given the high turnover of children at Jubilee School, target children were also chosen for their likelihood to remain at the school for the
duration of the research. The average age of the target children was 8.2 years. Table 4.2 below shows specific details of the 16 target children, all of whom were given pseudonyms to maintain anonymity.
Table 4.2 Details of participants across the four classrooms
Rm No. Number of children in class 02.02.03 Teacher pseudonym gender and ethnicity Age at 02.02.03 Years teaching Target children’s pseudonym and gender Age at 02.02.03 Years at the School Rm 1 30 Rick M European NZ 35 Team leader 3 Sakura F Era F Ikani M Caleb M 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 3 1 1 0 Rm 2 29 Amy F European NZ 25 2 Mere F Wendy F Aaron M Dan M 8.7 8.8 7.5 7.10 2 3 3 2 Rm 3 30 Tiare F Māori 30 9 Michelle F Zac M Jonah M Mike M 7.5 7.4 7.9 8.1 3 1 3 3 Rm 4 31 Kelly F European NZ 27 2 Sarah F Alice F Tahu M Keith M 8.5 8.2 8.5 8.6 3 3 3 3
While I knew one of the teachers, Rick, from his pre-service teacher education, as well as through the Exemplar Project, where I had also met Tiare, I had not previously met Amy or Kelly. Rick, the team leader, had been teaching for three years at Jubilee School, following ten years in the commercial world. Amy had been teaching for two years at Jubilee School after working in child care centres. Kelly had also been teaching for two years at the school having earlier travelled overseas. These three teachers each held a degree and had later completed a Graduate Diploma of Teaching. Tiare had been teaching for nine years after completing a Diploma of Teaching (Primary). She had taught at Jubilee School for four years. Table 4.2 provides further details of these teachers, whose real names are replaced by pseudonyms.