Ethical issues in data collection

As I aimed to carry out a research inquiry through this project, I was extremely cautious in every step of my approaches, for two particular reasons. The primary reason was that I would be conducting a kind of project that had never be done before in the target school, therefore the school administration and the whole related teaching staff needed to be informed at all stages of the implementation. My second concern was about the participating students. As these participants were minors, they and their parents were needed to be made aware of the methods of data collection, and the nature and effects of such drama workshop. To address the concerns of the school administration, I discussed my objectives, 2 _{BCT ((the Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students) is a national and unified}

examination procedure for all junior high school students. The test focus on achievement attained in core subjects and the score would be used as the major criteria in the admission to senior high schools. BCT was developed by MOE and is conducted in June each year.

120

CHEN __Chapter 3: Research Methodology

project, and every single step of my approaches in details with the Principal, the head of the junior high division, and the all teachers involved in the project. As the project was planned to be recorded, I also explained in details to the school administration about the method of data collection and the ethical issues so involved in meetings prior to the workshop.

I also realized that the drama approaches for language learning was to be implemented in a different way than what parents and students would have expected from an English drama performance. Therefore I put down in a letter to the parents about the goals, approaches, and possible effects of educational drama for language learning. In this letter, I also explained about the issues of confidentiality and protection of anonymity of participating students. This letter was sent to the parents of all participating students by the school administration. At the beginning of the workshop, I reminded the participants again about the objectives and approaches of the workshop, and that all sessions were to be recorded.

A consent form signed by all parents and students of this workshop was obtained prior to the workshop. To protect the identity of the participants within this study, in this research report actual names of the teachers and the participating students have been changed to pseudonyms.

3.2.5.7. Starting the action research: The procedure

Lewin (1946) defines a three-step spiral model for action research: unfreezing, . changing, and re-freezing, which refer to stages of planning, action, and evaluation (reflection) of action, respectively. For the context of this study, I will use the model developed by Elliot (1991) in which the action research cycle consists of four major phrases, as follows:

The Reconnaissance & General Plan .Initially an exploratory stance is adopted, where an understanding of a problem is developed and plans are made for some form of interventionary strategy.

Action .Then the intervention is carried out .

CHEN __Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Observation During and around the time of the intervention, pertinent observations are collected in various forms.

Reflection and Revision The new interventional strategies are carried out, and the cyclic process repeats, continuing until a sufficient

understanding of (or implement able solution for) the problem is achieved. The cyclical process of action research works as a loop: the first cycle through these for stages generate reflection that informs the modification of the next cycle, and so forth. In this way, the research process is cyclical and alternates between action and critical reflection. In doing so the cyclical process generates

understanding that in turn helps a continuous refining of methodology and interpretations of data. The procedure is explained as follows.

Stage 1: The Reconnaissance & General Plan:

Understanding the problems and defining the tasks

One week before the workshop, the collaborative team began to work more

intensively on the project. I planned and collaborated with the two selected CTs. A deliberate check on the AEL students’ English proficiency levels was conducted with the grade reports and test papers provided by the school. The purpose of this task was to decide on the level of language proficiency necessary for develop a referencing framework for the two DTs.

The team further conducted the following tasks:

1. The team defined the language as well as communicative tasks for developing intercultural communicative competence based on the guidelines provided in The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR)(Council of Europe, 2001) for the workshop, as in the

following list. The objectives in implementing these guidelines were to build a backbone on the development of syllabus for the workshop. In this way the researcher and coach team constructed a common understanding of the targets.

CHEN __Chapter 3: Research Methodology

2. The team then identified necessary teaching methodology for the drama praxis.

The language tasks included:  Asking questions  Listening to information  Identifying  Sharing information  Interaction  Instructing  Describing  Expressing  Sequencing  Summarizing  Persuading.  Speculating—Inferring The communicative tasks included:

 Cultural understanding.  Conflict recognition.  Persuading.

 Conflict resolution –

The intercultural communicative tasks included:  self-awareness

 accepting/bridging the differences between cultural groups  Identities and cultural/social/national/world citizen

Once the tasks were defined, the team facilitated one training session for the two CTs on the practice of educational drama in ELT. After the training session, the team worked on the procedure, syllabus, and lesson plans using the methodology of process drama. The teaching materials for the workshop were selected and evaluated with the following criteria:

 Cognitive appropriateness;

 Focus on cross-cultural differences and diversity;

 Potential for further development in the EFL classroom;

CHEN __Chapter 3: Research Methodology

 Quality & quantity of the practice in the target language. The team sent the guidelines and materials to the DTs, Mei and Yen, and discussed with the two teachers. With feedback from Mei and Yen,

the team then developed a detailed syllabus. Again this syllabus was sent to the DTs for their final approval. Steps and procedure were then explained to the supporting team members and tasks for each team member in the workshop were allocated. The syllabus and task allocation were then sent to the MEHS

administration for final approval. Preliminaries for the workshop

General meetings were held with the school administration committee to explain and discuss the research aim and procedure. There were also individual meetings with all English teachers for 7th _{and 8}th _{grades in MEHS to acquire a common}

understanding of the philosophy and methodology of the study.

The supervisor of the MEHS junior high division then reviewed and finalized the applications for the workshop. Once the list of participants was announced, a letter to the participants’ parents was then prepared to explain the research, outline the details for the workshop, to acquire consent of the parents for their children’s involvement in the study. As video recordings were to be used during the workshop, the participants and their parents agreed to the procedure. A sample of the consent form and the explanation of the intended research goals is presented in Appendix iv. .

Two English Chinese teachers (CTs) were appointed by MEHS to be the assistants for the project. Two intern assistants were appointed by the school to help in the video-taping work.

Stage 2: Action: Facilitating the workshop

At this stage, the drama workshop took place: a three days drama workshop (4 sessions/day, 90 minutes each session) for a class of 27 students. All participants and the two CTS stayed in the school dormitory for days 1 and 2 of the workshop, so there were also activities in the two evenings of the programme.

CHEN __Chapter 3: Research Methodology

The two DTs, the two CTs and the researcher met at the completion of the sessions each day. The procedure and participants’ responses were carefully examined and discussed, and the approaches for the sessions next day were modified and

revised accordingly.

To address the research goal of raising critical intercultural awareness (CIA), the drama praxis entails five dimensions for the development of CIA as constructed in Part 2 of Chapter 2: probelmatising, distancing/deconstructing, dialogue, reflection, and reconstruction of action. In terms of syllabus design, these five dimensions were not explored as a sequence; instead, they worked in a reciprocal and cyclical way. That is to say, one dimension might be triggered by another and lead to the

development of others. For instance, “probelmatising” might come from a “distanced” perspective, and thus lead to a “reflection” of one’s own status, and again trigger the act of ‘dialogue’ between self and others. The drama praxis is presented in more details in Appendix iii.

Stage 3: Observing, action, reflective action and revision

When the drama praxis was in action, the researcher and the two CTs remained seated at the far end of the room, and observed the execution of the workshop. During and after the each session, all members of the coaching team, which included the two DTs, the two CTs and the researcher took notes and kept journals. The team met during almost each break, compared notes and share observations and responses. The discussion and sharing among members were then noted down in journals. If the coaching team agreed on the minor revision of the approach, the DTs responsible for facilitating the related session would modify her approach accordingly. In certain moments, reflection came in form of “observation” and this might serve as reminders for approaches rather than request for changes. For instance, the DT would briefly mentioned that she

observed a reluctance in participants to follow a certain activity. The team agreed, and offered some relevant observation for such resistance. This did not lead to a noticeable change of approaches, but the DT might modify her approach in the following section based on this observation.

CHEN __Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Some other reflections, however, might lead to a major change of approach. Especially during the daily meeting in the evening, a more structured review of the process were held, and major changes would be considered for the sessions next day.

One week after the workshop, I presented a discussion of the approaches and documentation of the drama workshop to all English teachers in MEHS in a seminar.

The learners in participatory action research

In the meanwhile, for the participants, the drama praxis also acted like a

participatory action research. Here the model proposed by Habermas explained the praxis more appropriately as:

1. Description and interpretation of an existing situation;

2. Interrogation or ‘penetration’ of the reasons that brought the existing situation into being;

3. Proposing an action-oriented agenda for altering or democratizing the existing agenda (praxis);

4. Evaluation of the transformative and emancipatory effectiveness of the actions taken to alter the existing situation.

(Habermas, cited in Neelands, 2006, pp. 28-29).