As participatory action research is a participant, observer-based form of qualitative research (Cohen et al, 2000) I opted to use methods that could provide rich
qualitative data. I divided Part 1 into two Parts: Part 1(a) and Part 1(b). Part 1(a) included two data collection methods, both inspired by Winbourne (2008). For an overview of Part 1(a) procedure and how this related to the participatory action research process, please see Table 1 (below). A full explanation follows.
Part 1(a) process
(15/04/13 – 30/06/13)
Action Who was responsible
Initial planning and action Design and propose overall research aims and participant observation procedure
(as detailed previously)
A joint decision on who and what we should observe Me Co-participants Observation, reflection and evaluation Observation of co-
participants (and students of co-participants) in teaching contexts. Observation of co- participants in wider college settings Reflection in discussion and written journals
Co-participants
Re-planning A joint decision on who
and what we should observe next
Co-participants
Subsequent observation, reflection and evaluation
Observation of co-
participants (and students of co-participants) in teaching contexts. Observation of co-
college settings
Reflection in discussion and written journals
Re-planning Process of starting
subsequent cycle(s) of observation, reflection and evaluation
Co-participants
This facilitated greater understanding when we moved on to:
Initial planning and action Design video procedure and method of analysis (explained on page 90-91)
Me
Observation, reflection and evaluation
Participate and consider communities of practice in post-workshop discussion (explained on page 90-91)
(during face-to-face research activity and subsequently within written journals)
Co-participants
Evaluation Reflect on learning and
process, enabling us to move to Part 1(b)
Co-participants
The research activity was confined to one college campus. During Part 1(a), co- participants collaborated to undertake naturalistic participant observation (Cohen et
al, 2000) to observe co-participant practice in context, within training areas and wider
college practice. This afforded the chance to consider and explore co-participant communities of practice.
When we observed co-participants in other non-teaching wider-practice settings, we did this as informally as possible, discussing, when alone in our co-participant group, observable practice and their part in interactions with other co-participants. Other members of staff were unavoidably present during research activity but we did not observe or comment on the activity of others; only interactions between co-
participants were considered. These initial observations helped us get a feel for practice and aided reflection during Part 1(b).
Co-participants collaboratively agreed on the direction of our research process, deciding on what practice to observe and who and when to observe. We considered from where instructors currently gain knowledge relating to learning and how they work with other co-participants to improve their practice. This helped us gain a holistic understanding of how practice in one context related to practice in another (Denscombe, 2007). I guided co-participants to reflect on the physical setting, people in the teaching-learning context, their goals, how they felt, practice and timings/ sequence of events (Cohen et al, 2000).
Following this, like Winbourne (2008), I video recorded (using a Panasonic HDC- TM700 video recorder) co-participant contributions in a teaching (continuing professional development) session (workshop). During this workshop, my co- participants along with other instructors (non-participants) participated as learners; I delivered the session. I then examined the video after the workshop alone, for one particular ‘teaching moment’: a short clip/ a ‘snapshot’ of the session, where my teaching objectives were clearly visible. All co-participants then watched (using my works laptop, projector and speakers) this snapshot together, with no others present.
teaching moment, from my learners’ perspective. Like Winbourne (2008), I hoped it would provide insight into co-participant identity and collective ways of behaving.
When co-participants met to engage in Part 1(a) research activity, we spent time considering the communities of practice that we are currently members of (and may have been part of in the past). The opinions of all co-participants were considered during these face to face encounters; thoughts were re-counted and sometimes added to during the journal writing process. As all co-participants had access to all co-participant written journals, we had the opportunity to reconsider our initial
thoughts from face to face research activity. It was therefore possible to re-evaluate our understanding and reflect on how our perceptions changed during subsequent research activity and/ or journal entries (depending on how co-participants wished to express themselves). This process allowed us to continually return to consider how membership within communities of practice related to instructor identity. The initial observations of practice were intended to situate the ‘teaching moment’ in context (Winbourne, 2008).
At the start of Part 1(b) co-participants recruited as many instructors as possible from the campus where they are based.
Winbourne (2008) gathered productive data when he captured students’ stories so Part 1(b) concentrated on stories, as a method of data capture, to illuminate
communities of practice, building on understanding derived from Part 1(a). As stories have been considered the cornerstone of identity (Thody, 1997), I believed this would be the most fruitful approach. I hoped this approach would also provide insight into the figured worlds of instructors and how these influence and impact upon membership within communities of practice. We held story groups, where co- participants verbally related stories to each other and this inspired stories from others present. As Thody (1997) argues story groups are most productive if they adhere to a theme, we focused on our experiences with learning, and in particular learning to develop as a teacher. Our starting point was our understanding derived
face-to-face research activity, where we considered and attempted to identify existing instructor communities of practice, the process facilitated by our written journal entries (Myers, 2012; Rock and Wilson, 2005; Stigler and Hiebert, 1999), freely available to all co-participants. I guided co-participants to talk about past and current experiences with formal and informal learning and future aspirations
(Wenger, 1998), in relation to “Practices, space, time, bodies, social relationships [and] life courses” (Lave, 1996, p.154).
Stories were audio recorded, using an Olympus VN-713PC Voice Recorder, for subsequent analysis and to assess whether there were any recurring themes, emerging from the narrative. I transferred the audio recording to co-participant laptops, and we listened to these recordings in our own time to consider repeated themes or explanations, providing insight into instructor communities of practice. We talked on our analysis and subsequent reflections in our story groups, recounted in reflective journals, in subsequent meetings (Cohen et al, 2000; Thody, 1997).
I illustrate the framework for research for Part 1(b) and who was responsible for which actions directly below in Table 2: Part 1(b) Framework for Research.
Part 1(b) process
(01/07/13 – 18/08/13)
Action Who was responsible
Initial planning and action Design aims and story group process
Me
Observation, reflection and evaluation
Participate in story groups, reflecting on learning and communities of practice
Reflecting in discussion and written journals
Co-participants
Co-participants
Re-plan Consider how we can take
understanding from Part 1 into Part 2
Co-participants
Table 2: Part 1(b) Framework for Research