Initial analysis of each data set

Yin (2009) suggests ‘playing’ with the data initially, creating arrays of information according to various analytical themes until ‘stories’ emerge that are linked to the research questions. These analyses are summarised in Table 23 and linked to the four research questions (see Section 5.1).

173

Table 23: Analyses within each individual data set linked to the four research questions (see Section 5.1)

Data set Analyses undertaken Links to Research

Questions (RQs) Initial semi-

structured interviews

A thematic analysis was conducted (Braun and Clarke, 2006) across all interviews:

 Full transcription of recordings obtained  Listened and checked for accuracy of

transcription several times, making amendments as necessary

 Highlighting used to identify and code significant features of the interviews, particularly in relation to beliefs about pupil participation and children being involved in making decisions about their learning as well as perceptions of current level of pupil participation in each class

 Themes identified from highlighted/coded text  Search to identify potential illustrative quotes

and discrepant data

RQ 1

Exploration of teacher perceptions of pupil

participation and beliefs about the value of pupil participation.

Final semi- structured interviews

A thematic analysis was conducted (Braun and Clarke, 2006) across all interviews:

 Full transcription of recordings obtained  Listened and checked for accuracy of

transcription several times, making amendments as necessary

 Highlighter pen used to identify and code significant features of the interviews, in relation to: changes in perceptions about levels of participation in the class and beliefs about the value of participation; and

evaluative comments regarding the

implementation of AI in terms of enjoyment, suggested improvements, inclusion of

children with SEND and the need for all four stages of AI

 Themes identified from highlighted/coded text  Search to identify potential illustrative quotes

and discrepant data

RQs 1,2, 3, 4 Changes to perceptions and beliefs (RQ1), accounts of children’s responses (RQ2) and evaluative comments regarding strengths (RQ3) and suggested improvements (RQ4). PASS questionnaires (pre and post)

 The initial questionnaire data for Class A that had been completed on computer were transferred to paper questionnaires by hand  The full set of questionnaires was then

checked twice, photocopied and the originals sent to the PASS Team data analysts for processing. Decision made in consultation

RQ 2 Exploration of potential changes in a range of pupil attitudes following the AI.

174

with analysts that if one of the 50 items is not completed, the answer will be taken from the pupil’s other questionnaire, indicating no change for that item, thus enabling the rest of the pupils data on the other 49 items to be included

 Results returned electronically using coloured banding based on percentile ranks

 ‘Playing’ with this data. Looking for trends and the numbers of children who have moved up or down a band following the AI

 Difficulty analysing data to compare groups of children meaningfully so PASS data analysts agreed to convert percentile scores to percentages so that the mean for each sub group of the data can be calculated

 Statistical analysis of changes for each group of children, ‘playing’ with ideas in relation to SEND/non-SEND, gender, strand and item analysis for each class

 Decision not to focus on gender as this does not relate to research questions or purposes of the study

 Calculation of statistical significance for all changes in PASS data sets (pre- and post-AI)  Experimentation with charting the results to

illustrate changes according to each of the 9 attitudes measured by PASS for each of the groups in each case: whole class; SEND group and non-SEND group

Two rating scales (0 to 10) for perceived participation and belief about importance of participation (pre and post)

 Two sets of ratings (perceived participation and belief about importance of participation) recorded on Excel spreadsheet for each child and teacher in each class, pre- and post-AI  Two sets of averages calculated for each class

pre- and post-AI

 Two sets of data for each teacher charted  Two sets of children’s data sorted into SEND

and non-SEND and averages calculated for each of these subgroups for each class pre- and post-AI

 Statistical significance calculated for all changes in all data sets

 Experimentation with charting the results to illustrate changes on both rating scales for each of the groups in each case study: whole class; SEND group and non-SEND group

RQ 1 Exploration of children’s and teachers’ perceptions of participation and beliefs about the value of

175 Four rating scales (0 to 10) for children’s enjoyment and perceived participation at each stage of the AI

 Two ratings (enjoyment and participation) recorded on Excel spreadsheet for each child in each class for each of the four AI stages (Classes B and C completed ratings for the last two stages as one as these stages ran together)

 Averages calculated for each class in relation to both ratings (enjoyment and participation)  Children’s data sorted into SEND and non-

SEND and new averages calculated for each of these subgroups for each of the four stages on both ratings (enjoyment and participation)  Statistical significance calculated for all

changes in all data sets

 Experimentation with charting the results to illustrate perceptions of participation and enjoyment of each stage of the AI for each of the groups in each case study: whole class; SEND group and non-SEND group

RQ1 and 3 Children’s perceptions of participation (RQ1) and their enjoyment of the AI process (RQ3). Children’s evaluative comments on what they had enjoyed most and what could be improved at each stage of the AI

 Two sets of evaluative comments (what they had enjoyed most and their suggested

improvements) for each stage of the AI were typed into summaries for each class

 Simple thematic analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994) led to the grouping of comments in each class according to themes, with the number of children mentioning each theme recorded

 Identified themes were compared across each of the three classes and summarised in

comparative grids (two-dimensional matrices)  Experimentation with visual representation of

the results

RQ3 and 4 What the children enjoyed most (RQ3) and how they believe the AI process could be improved (RQ4). Examples of children’s ideas at each stage of the AI

 A variety of artefacts, including some

children’s interview notes from the Discovery Stage, some children’s planning sheets and ideas recorded on paper at the Dream, Design and Destiny Stages and some children’s writing at the implementation phase, were analysed for illustrative purposes i.e.

potentially to be photographed and included in the case study report

RQ2

Children’s ideas for changes to the curriculum.

Class discussions

 The notes made by groups of children on paper and my own researcher notes taken during and after the class discussions were scrutinised for information about what the children believed worked well, how changes

RQ2,3&4

Curriculum ideas (RQ2), enjoyment (RQ3) and

176

to the curriculum might improve their writing and what they thought could be improved about the AI process so that everyone is equally included the AI process (RQ4). Research notes and email communication with teachers

 Research field notes and written communication from teachers were scrutinised for illustrative purposes and to contribute to developing hypotheses in relation to each of the research questions

RQ1,2,3&4

National Curriculum Data

 Data relating to National Curriculum (NC) levels and sublevels of progress in Reading, Writing and Maths were recorded by hand for each child in each class where this data was made available

 Progress across the year was then analysed by comparing progress before the AI began with progress during the time in which the AI took place. This was done in different ways for Classes A and C due to the nature of the data presented by the teachers. No comparative analysis of NC progress data in Class B was possible because only one set of NC progress data was made available

 Data for Classes A and C were charted

RQ2 Changes in attainment and rates of progress in Writing.

Documentation  The Ofsted reports for both schools were used in order to provide information about each school context, the quality of teaching and the number of pupils on roll

Background information