Evaluation of the research questions

I have explained how the pilot study helped me to trial the data collection instruments used in the main study. I now turn to the question of how the pilot study led me to refine the research questions that this thesis addresses. These will be presented in the next section of the thesis. However, a glance at the research questions to be addressed in the main study will reveal the fact the term ‘argument’ has been replaced by that of ‘argumentation.’ This is because both my review of the literature and the findings of the pilot study pushed me towards a more dialogic conceptualisation of my topic, one which foregrounded process rather than product. This line of thinking also motivated another change. I reframed the question of “How do multilingual students construct arguments?” as: “How does argumentation emerge and unfold?” This too would allow for the more dialogic co-constructed dynamic characterisation of argumentation emerging. The metaphor of “construct” is rather static and structuralist in nature and, as the theoretical framework established in the literature review suggests, fails to account for the more dynamic, fluid and unpredictable characteristics of argumentation. I decided to abandon the Research Question: ‘What counts as argument?’ The principal rationale for this decision was that the question had a vagueness about it that meant that it was necessary to be more explicit about the conceptualisation of argument I was operationalising in the thesis. Otherwise, argument could simply mean anything I wanted it to mean. Some preliminary conceptualisation on the researcher’s part was necessary and this could then be refined in the light of the data. Hence, what I understand and operationalize as ‘argument’ or, now, ‘argumentation,’ is part of the introduction to this thesis. The subject is then returned to in the discussion. Furthermore, the ways in which argumentation is conceptualised can be treated as part of the student or teacher’s explicit positioning.

Similarly, the research question: “Do teachers and migrants learn how to argue a case?” was abandoned, considered too large in scope for practical investigation. However, this would be part of the historical positioning of students and teachers (their habitus) and would be addressed in the research question: “How do teachers and learners position themselves, and how are they positioned in argumentation in the Adult ESOL classroom?”

The pilot study also generated a new research question: “What is the role of narrative in argumentation?” This, of course, as the literature review has discussed, is an emerging research focus in argumentation.

3.4 The main study

3.4.1 Research questions

1. How does argumentation emerge and unfold in the Adult ESOL classroom? 2. How is argumentation authorized in the Adult ESOL classroom?

3. How do teachers and learners position themselves and each other, and how are they positioned, in argumentation in the Adult ESOL classroom?

4. How do teachers and learners perform identities through argumentation in the Adult ESOL classroom?

5. What is the role of narrative in argumentation in the Adult ESOL classroom?

It is necessary to observe that these research questions might be taken to suggest a universality which is not intended. No attempt is made to generalise beyond the specific instances presented here. Neither is there any attempt to ‘cherry-pick’ instances that demonstrate an a priori hypothesis. There is no a priori hypothesis. This point will be discussed in the sections on validity and generalizability later in the chapter.

3.4.2 Access and recruitment of participants

Procedures around access and recruitment in the main study were similar to those described in the pilot study in Section 3.3.2. This is because the research site was the same and the research participants were either students, or, in the case of the teacher trainees, colleagues as well as students. Thus the sample, again, was a convenience one and access was secured by approaching my line manager to seek permission, conditional upon student consent, for me to conduct exploratory teaching in my own Adult ESOL classroom.

Additionally, this time, I also sought permission from another line manager to conduct exploratory teaching in my Adult ESOL teacher education classroom. Permission to approach the teacher trainees having been granted, I then explained the nature of my research into argumentation to them and said that I would like to incorporate some of it into their sessions. Beyond this, I explained I was seeking to recruit teachers to conduct exploratory research in their own classrooms. Indeed, after the final group session, 3 teacher trainees approached me and volunteered to take part in the final phase of the research.

As in the pilot study, I obtained the informed consent of the all the participants using the forms included in the Appendices. I designed different forms for the different participants,

respectively, the teachers, and the students at both higher and lower levels.12 They all completed a consent form. Information about class profiles and a discussion of the biographies of the participating students in the main study is provided in Appendix 14, in the same way as it is for the pilot study.

3.4.3 Research design

I have already established the ways in which the research questions were shaped by my reading of the literature. Now I turn to the ways in which the research design was informed by a critical reading of both the literature on argumentation and, more generally, the research methods literature. The research tools used to collect the data are observation and interview. These will be described later when I will also explain how the data collection methods were used to address the research questions.

There is an interventionist dimension to the research design. Thus, I engage in exploratory teaching in my own classroom and then a sample of teachers are invited to do the same, following some initial teacher education work on the theory and practice of argumentation. There is a tradition of exploratory teaching in the domain of language education and an overview is to be found in Burns (2005). More specifically, in educational research there have been a number of projects which have aimed to identify existing pedagogical practices around argumentation and to devise approaches, strategies and materials to evaluate and improve these practices. Thus, Andrews et al., (1993) reported on exploratory teaching aimed at improving argument in primary and secondary schools. Similarly, Mitchell and Riddle (2000) reported on exploratory teaching in argument in higher education.

Moving closer to the research context of the present thesis, Roberts et al., (2007) reported on exploratory teaching conducted in the Adult ESOL classroom. This project focussed upon ways to develop extended turns of talk. It drew upon the principles of exploratory teaching practice described in Allwright and Bailey (1991, p. 197). These principles centred on teacher investigating elements of their existing practices and trying out new ones, the aim being to discover what works and why.

I now describe the different phases in the research, beginning with my exploratory teaching.

12

These forms are included in the Appendices 11, 12 and 13 respectively. The ethical issues around the issue of recruitment are discussed in Section 3.7.