Participants

There were 25 participants in CLERAC. As I moved further with the analysis, I decided to create Focal Participants; students who I selected because they were interesting or particularly unique (or particularly representative as the case may be). I tried to gain a deeper understanding of these individuals in order to look at the interactions between myself and

my students, and avoid generalisations about ‘the class’ but rather to focus on the individual

3.4.2.1 Participant List

Table 3.1 Participants.

Pseudonym Department

1 Ms Pine Economics

2 Mr Montville Economics

3 Ms Sound Materials and Life Sciences

4 Mr Swamp Materials and Life Sciences

5 Ms Redslope Materials and Life Sciences

6 Ms Widetree Materials and Life Sciences

7 Ms Smallville Materials and Life Sciences

8 Mr Cloud Materials and Life Sciences

9 Ms Downtree Materials and Life Sciences

10 Ms Saltfield Materials and Life Sciences

11 Mr Cleyera Materials and Life Sciences

12 Ms Oldriver Materials and Life Sciences

13 Mr Po Materials and Life Sciences

14 Mr Fly Engineering and Applied Sciences

15 Mr Charge Engineering and Applied Sciences

16 Mr Wind Engineering and Applied Sciences

17 Mr Dawn Engineering and Applied Sciences

18 Ms Forest Engineering and Applied Sciences

19 Mr Nintendo Information and Communication Sciences

20 Mr Mouth Information and Communication Sciences

21 Ms Chennai Information and Communication Sciences

22 Mr Auxiliary Information and Communication Sciences

23 Ms Lovehouse Information and Communication Sciences

24 Ms Hemp Information and Communication Sciences

25 Mr House Information and Communication Sciences

The creation of the pseudonyms might warrant some explanation here. Names are very

important, and knowing students’ names shows them that the teacher recognises them as

people (Shi, 2002). I made a special effort to learn all the students’ names and keep them in

memory so that I would remember them as individuals during the analysis. However, I found that when writing the analysis, I was not satisfied with my students’ pseudonyms because they were non-descript and did not match their personalities. I created a system where I would adopt one or two kanjicharacters from the students’ names and render them into

English. The kanji I chose did not always have meaning for me, but it gave the student

apt, such as Mr Charge and Mr Auxiliary. Although these names sound quite unnatural, because they stand out I felt they were good for the focal participants and also go some way to describing their student personas. The only exception to this system was Mr Nintendo, who is named after a conversation I had with him on the first day of class. Mr Nintendo did not pass the autumn semester, and so I wanted his name to differentiate him. The other participant with a different name is Mr Po, who is Chinese and so his real name differentiated

him in class already. I wanted to retain this aspect of Mr Po’s Chinese identity into the pseudonyms, as it was an important aspect of his identity in the class.

3.4.2.2 Focal Participants

Because of the large number of participants in the study, I needed to be selective and reduce the focus, in order to prioritise the quality of the analysis. I decided to select just four students as Focal Participants.

The process I adopted in choosing the individual students whom I would give focus to was not simple. I actually began selecting students while the class was still in progress, and this was useful in helping me to archive certain interactions or take notes. Whilst the classes were still ongoing and I still had a good personal knowledge of the students I began to select those who I felt allowed for a diverse cross-section of the students in the class. I wanted to choose students who were high achievers and highly motivated, and then students who were in the

middle, and finally students who I felt were ‘at the bottom of the class’ in terms of their own

personal involvement. I also tried to strike a balance between gender when making this selection, as I wanted the selection to be representative. It should be pointed out here that this judgement was mainly intuitive in that I was not looking at test-scores or other indicators of class performance, and these were more personal judgements that I made whilst I was still working closely with the students.

The second step in the selection was based on quality of data, selected after the final class had been taught and when I took stock of the types of data I had at my disposal for analysis. Some of the students I wanted to focus on, for example, had not actually revealed much in their assignments or in their classroom interactions. Of course, this in itself could be revealing in some ways, but I used this stock-taking phase as another way to help focus and refine the sample I would use.

Finally, I compiled learner profiles of the participants I had identified as the main students I wished to focus on for the inquiry. During this phase, I further eliminated several participants simply due to constraints of manageability. Out of 24 participants my list had numbered as many as 12 at one point for detailed focus, which then went down to seven, but finally reduced to four as I felt any larger number than this would compromise the quality of the focus. Of course, I should stress here that the other participants will still be part of the study, but I will not draw on their data as much. In addition, I began listing the most critical reflections on which to focus the narrative. Rather than listing the reflections here out of context, they are presented chronologically in the narrative under designated headings. Together this shortlist of participants and reflections is hoped to provide the central points around which the main themes for analysis gravitate.

The list of Focal Participants is as follows (16% of participants): 1. Mr Auxiliary

2. Mr Charge 3. Ms Downtree 4. Mr Po