Ethical processes and procedures

In accordance with Newcastle University procedures for research projects involving human subjects in a non-clinical setting, this study began once I had applied for and was granted ethical approval. My application involved a consideration of the type of project I intended to conduct and how I intended to conduct it, as well as participants, risk management, informed consent and debriefing participants once the research had been completed.

By acknowledging that the predominant nature of my study involved the use of video evidence and semi-structured interviews produced during the KTP, I provided evidence of the ethical approval granted to this preceding project. In doing so, I clarified the overlap concerning my suggested approach to data collection methods, which involved resources collected during the KTP and at a later stage as part of my doctoral studies. I also made clear that the outcomes would be used to inform my own practice as a senior school leader but also that of other practitioners interested in building internal capacity for change in schools.

In terms of participants, although my study mainly concerns teachers developing understanding of enquiry based learning, their ages ranged from 12 to 55 years. I also name the school as a participant. My study included teachers and students. All of the teachers were over the age of 18 years at the beginning of my study and competent to give consent. Students were all given a letter to be signed by a parent or carer granting permission for their son or daughter to be included in the study. If a student did not return their consent slip, they were not involved in lessons or parts of lessons which were being used for the purposes of data collection. Approval was granted by the school in the form of a letter from the Principal. There were no other participants.

Participants were informed both verbally and in writing that their involvement would be voluntary and that they could withdraw from the research at any time (Appendix B, p. 155). Withdrawal would have created particular issues, which I would have been required to resolve in my roles as KTP Associate and later as a researcher, however this was at no time communicated to participants. In personalised letters, participants were told that their data would be treated with the maximum confidentiality within the context of the study and in the wider academic community. This was particularly

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Methodology

problematic because participants were well known within the school community at the time of the KTP. They were trying out new approaches to learning and discussing them with colleagues who were not directly involved in the project. Following an open discussion, the teachers acknowledged this issue and suggested that they and the school appear in my thesis under pseudonyms, which only they would know, unless they decided to tell someone else. I would not reveal exactly which teacher appeared under each name in the thesis. This does not completely eradicate the issue of being able to identify particular participants however it is a solution, which was reached in

collaboration with the teachers and which they accepted.

Participants were also exposed to the general risks that are associated with being in a busy secondary school, psychological risks involved in ‘risk-taking’ as part of the developmental nature of curriculum innovation, social risks involved in being part of the core group of seven teachers, and the risk of disclosing personal information. Tableford School has generic risk assessment procedures, which were adhered to throughout my study. In addition, I had regular meetings with the Deputy Principal and my academic supervisor in order to identify potential issues causing concern to

individual participants, and I had an open approach to working with the teachers themselves. They each had my contact details and took it upon themselves to get in touch with even the slightest concern.

Going further, there was the potential for risk to, damage to, or destruction of artefacts arising from my research, particularly in relation to the loss of video or audio

recordings, or my thesis itself. All electronic documentation was stored on the Newcastle University network with password protection and appropriate back-up systems. The transcription of video and audio data occurred as soon as possible after making the recording. Once checked for authenticity, the original recordings were then destroyed. Data were stored using a simple, accurate filing system to ensure quick and easy retrieval.

Prior to giving their consent, a written information sheet was distributed to all teachers, students and their parents at the beginning of the KTP project in January 2008. A letter was sent to all parents of students in Years 7 and 8 in February 2008 requesting

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Methodology

articles relating to the KTP project appeared regularly in the school newsletter. Letters of re-introduction were sent to teachers and students prior to the final round of

interviews in September 2011 (Appendix C, p. 156).

Finally, teachers played an integral role in my process of data analysis. This is

presented in more detail in Section 4.7 of my thesis (pp. 76-77). They also underwent a debriefing process once I had completed the writing up stage of my work. Each

participant, as well as the school Principal, was given a copy of my thesis for comment and approval prior to submission. Participants’ full consent is recorded in the form of their signed letter of re-introduction. They have the originals. Photocopies are stored in a locked fire-proof filing cabinet at Newcastle University.

3.8.5 Critique

The layers of complexity consistent within educational research are undoubtedly in evidence within my choice of methodology for this study. As a result, it is not without limitation. Indeed, limitations include the influence of time and space on my research design as well as issues concerning my data collection methods and research

participants.

Firstly, the timing of my research and analysis as well as my methods of data collection. My research study was conducted in a ‘localized place in time’ (Bassey, 1999). Indeed, the KTP project ran between January 2008 and December 2009 and I conducted a series of subsequent interviews in May and September 2011. However, the intervening period constituted a break away from Tableford School and a personal awareness of my own ‘discursive gap’ (Bernstein, 1996). This undoubtedly influenced me as a human being. As a result, I heed Bakhtin’s (1981, pp. 84-258) warning about the potential of time and space to distort realities depending on an individual’s experience and personal

perspective. I am also critical of the lack of a consistent interviewer within my research study, my reliance on transcribed audio material up to three years after its initial

recording and my justification of using audio material which was not originally intended for this research study. These issues are mainly due to the timing of my decision to pursue my thesis and can be justified on the basis of solutions from

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Methodology

I am also maintaining that my work is ‘real’ and that it is bound by the challenges of its context.

Concerning the participants, the initial team of seven KTP teachers was put together by the school Principal and Deputy Principal prior to my involvement with the project. It did not include the ‘best teachers’ based on lesson observation outcomes. Indeed, the decision was also made to avoid staff members who had a particular established reputation within the school (Reynolds et al., 1996). Instead, the final group of teachers, which represented approximately ten percent of the teaching staff in the school, comprised of two teachers each from the core curriculum areas of English, Maths, Science, and one teacher from Art (Table 5, p. 59). In the second year of the project, and in accordance with the overall plan, I was instrumental in doubling the number of teachers participating in the development of a formative assessment framework for enquiry skills to fourteen. Although I have chosen to exclude them as participants from the focus of this research study, primarily because I emphasise the importance of relationships and I feel I simply did not know the second cohort of teachers as well as the first, the seven teachers refer to them in their interviews. Some of the teachers from the second cohort of the KTP project appear in my analyses and findings. They are Anthony Jones, Daniel Williams, Elizabeth Davies and Mia Evans. None of the teachers’ names within this research report are their own. I have changed them. This is in part in accordance with conventions of educational research which surround concepts of anonymity and participant care (BERA, 2011). It is also an attempt to encourage my critical evaluation of teachers’ selves and teachers’ own self review. For example, the process of analysing issues faced by teachers as aliases lessens opportunities for me to react in an overly subjective, and therefore emotional, manner to their transcribed interview data and video recorded lessons. This is

especially important if a teacher raises an issue concerning an aspect of my involvement in the KTP project. Names were selected at random from online lists of the twenty most common male first names, female first names and family names in the UK. In actual fact, my desire to ensure anonymity is somewhat naïve. Firstly, all of the participants were well known to the teaching and professional support staff at Tableford School. Secondly, the small size of my sample and my inclusion of a brief description of each participant makes it very easy for anyone who knew the context of the school to identify

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Methodology

realistically, their anonymity is maintained where readers of this research study are not biased by prior knowledge of either the KTP project or the school.

My final concern involves the concepts of power and control during the process of selecting the initial group of seven teachers. At no time were they directed to take part in the KTP project. However, each teacher was approached by either the Principal or his Deputy Principal and invited to participate and members of the school’s leadership team influenced participation. Once the project began, however, I believe that there was very little explicit influence from the Principal or Deputy Principal, although this did occur. Lastly, teachers did not benefit from any kind of remuneration. Although it would have greatly complicated both the success of the KTP project, my task of managing it, the teachers were free to disengage at any time, and in good faith. This is outlined in the agreed working protocol (Appendix B, p. 155).

3.9 Conclusion

I have arrived at a methodology for exploring teachers’ developing understanding of enquiry based learning by considering issues of research strategy, design and methods within the context of a dialogic conceptual framework. Including concepts of time, space and interpretation, my case study – as with much educational research - is not without flaw. Nevertheless, I trust that other researchers will engage with what I am attempting to do, even if they do not agree with it. In the next chapter, I will present more precise details of my analysis and a critical evaluation of my framework for

analysing the resources I have collected regarding teachers’ shifting perceptions. Then I will present my findings.

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Analysis