Integrity of the research

Schwalback (2003) explained action research must have integrity. This section will clarify how the research was designed to demonstrate it had validity and was and reliable in its approach.

4.9.1 Validity

Validity refers to how effective a research tool was in measuring what it intended to measure (McNiff 2017, Wallace 2015). Habermas (1984) argued validity is important in communication as we need to ensure others believe in our claims and thus understand our message. It was therefore important the research was designed to ensure it was valid and the data collected enabled a greater understanding of the topic to meet the research objectives. Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action (1984) states a mutual understanding can only be achieved through a dialogue. This was not possible in all aspects of this research, so the approaches used had to be carefully designed to achieve a mutual understanding as much as possible through piloting of methods and clear communication when they were implemented. Long (2017) argued Habermas’ theory can be applied to demonstrate validity in mixed methods research via his three validity claims. The objective claim (claim to truth) is established by describing the setting, the participants and the process; the normative claim (claim to rightness) is established by explaining and justifying the methods to demonstrate their relevance; and the subjective claim (claim to authenticity is established by explaining what is generated from the data.

Applying Habermas’ theory and Long’s (2017) views to support the validity claims for this research, the claim to truth is set out in section 4.2: A Case Study and in section

102

4.6: Research Design; the claim to rightness is explained in section 4.6: Research Design and the claim to authenticity is explained in Chapter Five.

The validity of research depends on the design and implementation of methods, and by ensuring approaches and tools chosen related to what was intended to be measured (Yin 2018, O’Leary 2010, Swanborn 2010, Schwalbach 2003). This gives them construct validity because they were constructed to elicit relevant data to meet the research objectives. The final design of the questionnaires and interviews were developed after piloting, as explained in section 4.7.1 The questionnaires and interviews were successful in capturing student views about the feedback they received from their teachers and peers, so they had construct validity. A member checking process at the end of the interviews ensured the participants’ views had been recorded accurately.

Schwalbach (2003) explained validity in action research requires the soundness of the subject matter to be maintained throughout the research. Published research was used to identify themes of the questions asked in the questionnaire. The previous work of Black et al (2003) on assessment for learning: written feedback, success criteria, self and peer feedback formed the basis of the questions. The principles of the Assessment Reform Group (2002) were also drawn upon by exploring the motivational aspects of feedback and opportunities to use and engage with it. This literature was also used to establish the themes in the data analysis (Chapter Five).

Validity was also achieved by sharing and discussing the data as it emerged with colleagues and fellow researchers at doctoral conferences and to teacher educational professionals through the Teacher Education Advancement Network (TEAN).

Internal validity can be influenced by the way the researcher interprets the data and the inferences made (Yin 2018). The approach to data analysis, explained in section 4.13, identifies how the data was themed and inferences drawn. As the school was in Special Measures at the time of the research, it was important not to assume any changes in student opinion were solely down to the research or subsequent practice of the teachers but could also be due to any other changes and initiatives taking place. This research sought to gather, explore, share and utilise students’ views to shape teachers’

understanding and practice rather than use any other form of data. As such, performance data from assessments was not used as a measure of learning

enhancement in this research as it could be influenced by other factors and would affect the validity of the research claims (De Vaus 2001). The use of SPSS data analysis

software enabled a statistical analysis of the differences in views between certain groups

103

of students. Whilst statistical analysis is rare in case study research (Yin 2018), the large sample in this situation enabled this to be possible and was useful to see if differences were due to randomness or were suggestive of another reason.

External validity refers to the relevance of the findings being useful beyond the

immediate study (Yin 2018). The nature of action research, which occurs in the natural setting (Schwalbach 2003), gives it external validity as it is representative of real-world experiences (De Vaus 2001). OfSTED’s East Midlands Regional Report (2014) identified concerns about the quality of education provision in the East Midlands, so the outcomes of this research may have wider relevance in that it can inform the development of practice beyond this single school case study. Sharing the research and acceptance by professional colleagues at seminars and conferences gives the data external validity (McNiff 2017). This was achieved during the course of the project.

4.9.2 Reliability

Swanborn (2010) and Cohen et al (2018) claim the question of reliability refers to whether the research results remain stable over time with no changes occurring if the research was repeated. In case study research, it is unusual for the research to be repeated as it is specific to the case, but the reliability can be achieved by documenting the procedure adopted (Yin 2018). Cohen et al (2018) claimed reliability in qualitative research can be achieved by identifying a fit between what the researcher records as data and what occurs in the natural setting. This research was designed to capture the experience of students and teachers in the setting, so the creation of the tools was important to ensure this was done as accurately as possible. Student views will not remain constant and can change, influenced by the factors previously discussed in the literature review (Chapter Three). Thus, the data could only capture their views at the time of the surveys. It cannot be assumed the information students gave at the time was fully representative of their views. They may have been influenced by the teachers who administered the questionnaires (the gatekeepers), by their peers or their attitude on the day.

To ensure the questionnaires were a reliable tool, they were designed in relation to published research, using age-appropriate terminology and were piloted to ensure they were simple to complete and effective in eliciting the data required. To achieve reliability through the interviews, I needed to avoid a bias in the questions and interpretation. The student interview questions were structured and shared with their teachers in advance.

This approach was taken to check the suitability of the questions and enable the

teachers to feel part of the research process. The teacher interviews were less structured but were also shared in advance to give them an opportunity to prepare so their

104

responses were more considered than they might have been if this had not been done.

Structured interviews, Cohen et al (2018) argued, increase reliability as it ensures each participant is asked the same questions. However, the benefit of an interview is that it evolves, it can be flexible and dig deeper into the responses of the interviewees, providing rich data (Newby 2010). It was therefore important to maintain flexibility to explore the student and teachers’ perceptions and enable the aspects they raised to be followed up, so a semi-structured approach was used. The interviews were recorded and transcribed (available in Appendices 6-14), providing documentary evidence of the conversations to increase reliability of the process (Silverman 2010).

By discussing the data with members of the SLT and the DHT, a comparison could be made between their knowledge of the current practices and student perceptions, which lead to subsequent action.