In addition to the philosophical aspects (ontology, epistemology and methodology; discussed in section 3.2) of a research study, Mertens (2015) stresses an important aspect, which is to ask the axiological question: “What is the nature of ethics?” (p. 10).
Axiological questions of any research are related to the ethics or values that a researcher considers important and puts stress on when carrying out a study. Punch and Oancea (2014) define ethics as “the study of what are good, right or virtuous courses of action” (p58). These ethics are an integral part of any research and should be acknowledged in the planning and conducting of any research, no matter what methods/paradigm a researcher uses (Mertens, 2015). Usually, these ethics are the expressions of basic human rights of respect for person, autonomy, justice and privacy of the research participants (Massey University, 2015). A researcher of social sciences has to address ethical issues related to the participants and their context, such as cultural, communal and religious, to add to the credibility of their research. Ethical issues may arise starting from the outset (planning) to the conduct and evaluation of any research project (Punch & Oancea, 2014). Keeping in mind the need and importance of addressing these issues, research councils, committees, and institutional review boards have identified different ethical principles to guide research practice. These principles generally are reported as the codes of ethical conduct for the associated researchers. Prominent examples of educational research related codes are the American Educational Research Association’s (AERA) (2011) code of ethics and the Australian Association for Research in Education’s (AARE) (2016) code of ethics. These codes present comprehensive lists of values and principles (general and specific) to guide the research behaviour of their members.
Massey University (2010, 2015) through its Human Ethics Committee (MUHEC) administers an ethical code of research titled Code of ethical conduct for research, teaching and evaluations involving human participants, which was followed during the planning and conduct of this research. The following points discuss the consideration of the eight ethical principles outlined in the MUHEC code of conduct in relation to the conduct of this research:
1. Respect for persons: The principle states that the personal dignity, rights, beliefs, privacy and autonomy of participants should be ensured. The participants have the right to decline to participate and for that they need not give any reasons (Massey University, 2015). To address this principle, every participant was given due respect for deciding to participate or not, and to withdraw from the study. Before that, every gatekeeper (Punch & Oancea, 2014) (The Director Public
Instruction-DPI, District Education Officer-DEO and school principal, in this case) was given due respect to allow (or not) the researcher to carry out the study, keeping in mind the complexities involved in those decisions.
2. Minimization of risk of harm: Every possible form of harm, such as physical, social, psychological, reputational, practical, occupational and economic (Punch & Oancea, 2014) harm, to everyone involved or related to the study was diminished by ensuring the minimization of pain, fatigue, stress, emotional distress, exploitation, embarrassment, and cultural dissonance (Massey University, 2015). For example, students were made comfortable while introducing the intervention and were encouraged to share any doubts or worries. Separate and equivalent class arrangements were made for non-participating students with the help of teachers and school principals. Additionally, every potential risk of harm to the researcher, community, groups and Massey University was considered and minimized.
3. Informed and voluntary consent: Clark (1997) stress that in order to carry out a research project, the researcher needs to obtain informed consent and not just the consent from the participants. The agreement of participants should be based on decisions made by them on the basis of detailed knowledge and information provided to them about the research and their roles and expectations (Clark, 1997). In this research, sufficient information about the study was provided to the authorities and participants to obtain their informed and voluntary consent (appendices C, D, E and G). Given the average age of 15 years of the student participants, their parents were contacted to obtain their consent (appendix F) to participate in the research, informing them of the students’ rights of anonymity, confidentiality, privacy and withdrawal from the study at any time (Creswell, 2012).
4. Respect for privacy and confidentiality: The privacy of the students in public places other than classrooms and computer labs, such as during assessments and discussions, was ensured and stated very clearly when obtaining informed consent. Participants were made aware of the confidentiality of the information collected and its use. The principle of respect for persons (Clark, 1997; Punch &
Oancea, 2014) was addressed by ensuring the non-disclosure of information to third parties and its storage at a safe place.
5. Avoidance of unnecessary deception: In some research projects, for instance in a psychological study, obtaining informed consent is impossible or undesirable depending upon the aims and larger benefits to the community (Massey University, 2015). In those cases, deception should be justified and clearly stated to the ethics committee. Given that the primary purpose of the present study was to improve the learning, motivation and achievement of students in secondary science and this was clearly stated in all the communications with participants, the potential scope of deception in carrying out of this research was nil.
6. Avoidance of conflict of role/interest: In educational or social research, sometimes a conflict of interest may arise due to the positions, roles and benefits to different parties. This research was not funded by any organisation and the position of the researcher as a PhD student and previous teacher did not cause any conflict with any party involved in the research process. None of the research participants were previously known to the researcher. Every possibility of any conflict and its nature between roles and interests of the researcher was identified to the MUHEC when seeking approval for the conduct of this study. The roles of the researcher (as teacher trainer, facilitator, researcher) and activities (such as assessment) carried out by the researcher during the project were outlined and explained to minimize and avoid any conflict of interest with participants and institutions. However, no conflict of interest was identified during the carrying out of this study.
7. Social and cultural sensitivity: The MUHEC code of conduct (Massey University, 2015) outlines the two types of communities to which the researcher is accountable: the academic and the ‘community’ in which the actual research is carried out. A researcher is answerable to the academic community in that the head of the college/institute/school/committee or supervisors’ reviews and peer review should be carried out to ensure the legitimacy of the research (Massey University, 2015). Social and cultural sensitivity can be ensured by giving respect to indigenous participants, seeking their permission and support beforehand, taking into account their system of beliefs and collaborating with the
participating community to share the benefits and ownership of the project (Massey University, 2010, 2015). Every aspect of the social and cultural identity of participants and overall educational context was considered before the start of this research. Given the equivalent social status of all the participants, there was none to be identified as socially and culturally different. The cultures of the researcher and the participants were also alike.
8. Justice: According to Clark (1997) the utility of a research project can be considered in terms of better understanding of an educational issue, the benefits to the body of knowledge, benefits to the community and participants and finally to the researcher in terms of funding, promotion, qualification, commercial or political. Clark (1997) warns that a researcher’s benefits should not over-ride the community, participants and the field. In this study, the purpose of research was made clear to all concerned and involved. Apart from gaining the degree the main purpose of research was to improve the pedagogy, instruction and learning practice, along with the achievement and motivation of secondary school students to learn science. Therefore, the findings were in the interest of the community and the participants in the first instance (Clark, 1997) and others later on.
Keeping in mind researchers’ broad responsibilities (American Educational Research Association, 2011; New Zealand Association for Research in Education, 2010) and the MUHEC code of ethics (Massey University, 2010), an initial assessment of the Massey University screening questionnaire to determine the low/high risk notification was carried out. This process was carried out in consultation with the main and co- supervisor. The outputs of the screening questionnaire and the nature of research (the methodology and methods) indicated that this study required a low risk notification from the MUHEC. Therefore, an application for the low risk notification was made to the MUHEC to obtain permission for carrying out the study. The approval letter from the chair of MUHEC is attached in the appendix B.
After MUHEC approval, the Director Public Instruction of Schools (DPI Schools) and heads of the schools were contacted to seek permissions to carry out the study in the anticipated Indian schools. Copies of the letters, consent forms and approval are attached in appendices C and D. Finally, the school teachers, students and parents were
contacted to seek their consents to participate in the study. The letters to teachers, parents and students along with the consent forms are attached in appendices E, F and G. This chapter presented the theoretical aspects of research methodology and discussed its situation in the pragmatist paradigm. The use of the design-based research as an appropriate methodology for this study was discussed and justified. After that, the Solomon four-group research design adopted to carry out the study was explained and justified. The research procedures were then described followed by a discussion of the process of data gathering and analysis. Finally, the ethical issues related with the research were considered and addressed in practice. The results obtained from the data analyses are presented in chapter 4.
Chapter Four.
Results
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of computer-based collaborative concept mapping (CCCM) on Indian secondary students’ science achievement, conceptual learning and motivation towards science learning. The results obtained from the analyses of the data are reported in this chapter. The results are presented in the same sequence as of the research questions. The initial sections 4.1 and 4.2 present the quantitative and qualitative descriptions of results for students’ achievement and conceptual learning in science obtained from the ATS9 and concept maps. The results for the motivation questionnaire (SMTSL) are presented in section 4.3. The subsequent sections 4.4 and 4.5 then present findings from the teacher interviews and students’ focus group discussions. A limited description of results is given here, whereas a detailed discussion is provided in chapter 5.