Ethics in Practice

As a researcher working in the area of education, like many others (Dörnyei 2007; Flewitt 2005; Punch 2013), I opine that any research study should be driven by the benefits that it can bring to both the participants and the society as a whole. Similarly, I also believe that research involving qualitative methods of inquiry, as far as possible, should only be pursued if the welfare of the participants can be ensured. That said, in this study I followed a code of ethical practice that aligns with the aforementioned moral principles, which can essentially be summarised as trying to strike the balance between:

a) Pursuing my research in order to advance theoretical and applied knowledge in our society (Cohen et al., 2005; Nachmias & Nachmias, 1976).

b) Protecting the participants from being harmed in any way, and also ensuring that this research benefits them in some way (Dörnyei 2007) — even if this should affect the impact of my research (Price 1996).

Regarding my ethical stance associated with the development of science, in accordance with the official British Education Research Guidelines (BERA 2004), I adopted an objective, transparent, and unbiased approach to the data, and a respectful tone in its reporting. Additionally, the overall research, together with the data obtained, was safely stored in my personal password-protected computer, an external password-protected hard-drive, and a personal password-protected folder in Dropbox (an online storage facility). Furthermore, I would only make use of the data for its originally determined purposes (Data Collection Act, 1998), namely my thesis and any subsequent scholarly publications and/or conference presentations. Finally, when ethical dilemmas arose, I consulted my supervisor(s) (Reynolds 1979).

Moreover, in order to protect the wellbeing of my research subjects, I treated all participants equally and with the same respect; and I never did anything to cause

physical or psychological harm (see BERA 2004, for a discussion). I also unreservedly kept an open dialogue with the participants throughout the data collection period. Furthermore, I did not reveal the identity of the participants or any information that might make participants identifiable and/or traceable (BERA 2004; Cohen et al., 2005) — despite the fact that arguably absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed (Kaiser 2009; Walford 2005). To protect their personal identities, I encouraged participants to choose a pseudonym by which they would like to be identified in my thesis, and also in potential publications/presentations derived from my research. Finally, once my thesis is

complete I would revisit the school to show the participants how I eventually used the data and to thank them for their participation (cf. Flewitt 2005). As Dörnyei (2007: 68) points out:

Unfortunately, it is all too common to see a ‘slash and burn’ research strategy whereby

investigators use their participants without offering anything in return and as soon as the data has been gathered they disappear. I some cases, saying a warm and salient ‘thank you’ may be enough.

To conclude this section, I will discuss the potential benefits of my research to the participants. I envisaged benefits both at the student and school levels. Firstly, students were expected to benefit directly from the implementation of the ProE model. This is because the model would seek to provide them with pleasant classroom experiences over the academic year. Secondly, Pamela was also expected to benefit from this

intervention, since it would allow her to learn and experience new ways of teaching and learning and consequently, potentially develop as a professional. Finally, the school would also benefit from this research by means of tailor-made workshops upon completion of the study, and also by receiving mention in all future scientific

Chapter Five: Action Research Cycle Zero

5.1 Introduction

The following chapters (Chapters Five, Six and Seven) focus on the implementation process of the ProE model. This particular chapter is concerned with the preliminary work done before its implementation (5.2). I describe the actions undertaken before the initial implementing, and what led to take those actions. Chapters Six and Seven concentrate on the action research approach undertaken in this investigation. As previously mentioned, this consists of two research cycles that seek to ascertain the potential of the ProE model for student ASEC engagement in learning activities. Each research cycle corresponds to an implementation of the ProE model using a language- learning project, resulting in a total of two applications of the model in this study. Furthermore, each research cycle follows the same structure, which logically corresponds to the four essential stages of action research, namely planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). Thus, as discussed in 4.3, in the planning phase, I describe the characteristics of the language-learning project designed under the parameters of the ProE model. In the acting stage, I provide a step- by-step description of the project implementation. In the observing stage, I report on the data collection process, which includes what data was collected and how. Finally, at the reflecting stage, I develop the data analysis and discussion of the findings concerning the impact of the language-learning project, and thus, the ProE model on student ASEC engagement.

Moreover, the reflecting stage is separated into three parts. Given that this study adopts an action research approach (cf. 4.3), the first part concentrates on my experience as an action researcher. Consequently, I report on the findings of the research cycle and

provide directions for future courses of action. My recommendations are based on an asystematic analysis (practitioner account) of the data that was conducted while

undertaking the research. The reason for this asystematic analysis is time-related. In the first cycle, I only had a few days between the first and the second cycle; therefore, I was only able to analyse the data in an informal way (i.e., repeated reading of notes and questionnaire results, and listening to the interviews) and take actions based on the findings of such analysis. In the second cycle, however, as the study was concluded and no further action was needed, I felt that recording my assessment of the ProE model implementation in the form of a reflection at the end of the research cycle would suffice. A systematic analysis of the data would then follow for the reasons I specify next.

The second part of the reflective stage of action research is therefore concerned with systematic analyses of the data from an outsider’s perspective (i.e., researcher account). These are analyses that were conducted after the research was completed and correspond with the global and temporal analysis of ASEC engagement and the analysis of the facilitators and inhibitors of engagement. My rationale for systematic analyses of the data is that, in addition to time constraints, an insider’s perspective (i.e., practitioner researcher), despite being essential to understanding the phenomenon under

investigation might not provide a sufficient understanding of the events (see Denscombe 2010, for a discussion). That is, relying solely on insider knowledge may be problematic since the practitioner may be unable to detect key factors because of being too involved in the research context. For example, an insider may overlook important elements because s/he deems them too mundane or too obvious. In this respect, an outsider’s perspective (i.e., systematic analysis or analyses) becomes necessary to complement the practitioner’s insights and thus provide a more complete account of the events. As Denscombe (2010: 80) puts it:

The outsider ‘expert’ may not have the ‘right’ answer, but can possibly offer an alternative perspective that can help the practitioner to gain new insights into the nature of the practical

problem. So, although action research respects the knowledge of the practitioners, it would be rather naive to assume that practitioners’ knowledge – of itself – provides all the answers.

The third and final part of the reflective stage is concerned with the discussion of the findings. There, I state my interpretations and opinions of the results of the systematic analyses and connect them to existing theory and research in order to answer this study’s research question (i.e., the impact of the ProE model on student ASEC engagement in learning activities). I also contrast the results obtained by the asystematic analyses (i.e., practitioner account) with the systematic analyses (i.e., researcher account) to obtain a much clearer picture of the results obtained by the systematic analyses.