Rationale behind case selection

The research questions we asked at the end of the previous chapter (see pp. 62-64) do not qualify the setting in which we place ourselves: what is "the" classroom mentioned in the first question? This vagueness, or generality, was

deliberate, because we believe the methodology outlined above can fruitfully be applied to many settings to answer this question - qualifiers of what "the classroom" means can be applied only later.

What remains, however, is that this methodology is too heavy to be applied on a large scale: it is suited to case studies alone.

We are interested in the "generic" lower-secondary school classroom in Western education. This "generic" class is a construct, and we do not mean by referring to it that all classes somehow follow this model: in keeping with case theory epistemology, we simply aim for our overall findings to be relevant to all classrooms in this population (Flybjerg, 2006). This implies collecting data from a variety of cases, so that our observations may not simply be imputed to idiosyncratic elements. In doing so, we may as well gain some insight into the nature of the external influences to classroom interaction, through comparing the classes we observe. In order for these comparisons to be meaningful, however, it is necessary for our cases to present some similarity. In practical terms, this is manifest through (a) the restriction to Western education, (b) the restriction of our data to one year group and (c) the restriction of our data to a limited number of subjects. We detail how these were chosen below.

We chose to observe schools in two countries which are very different in terms of educational system and teacher responsibilities, but which still belong to the Western culture: France and England. In France, we collected data in two

Page 91

schools: Skaro Motte and Varos Hill; in England, in one school: Gallifrey Vale16.The age of our sample was selected according to the following criteria:

there should be provision in the selected subjects at that age (physics/science, mathematics and languages). As, in France, teaching of physics only starts in cinquième this rules out the first year of secondary education (sixième, or Year Seven – where students are aged 10 or 11).

there should be as little focus on nationally awarded certificates as possible (brevet, GCSE), as their practical organisation varies much between countries; and the link between examination types and systems on the one hand, and the classroom culture on the other, was not the focus of our research. In doing so, we are not stating that the examination system only has an influence on the classroom in exam years; we are merely avoiding, as best we can, its explicit and direct influence17. In other terms, we are only interested in the influence of the examination system on classroom practice through classroom culture.

Whilst in France, the focus on these end-of-compulsory-education exams is mostly felt in troisième, studying in England is explicitly towards GCSE in Years 10 and 11.

16

School names have been changed.

17

This explicit and direct influence was not, however, entirely absent. Assignments towards BTEC qualifications were given in the science lessons in England.

the age group should be the same across the cases, to allow for comparison. Where possible, there should also be an overlap in curricula, so as to make it possible to compare lessons with a shared topic.

Therefore, we decided to seek to collect data amongst cinquième students in France, and Year 8 students in England (students are aged 11 or 12 in both cases). The division of our time between France and England meant, however, that data collected in France was from the middle of the academic year, while data collected in England was from the end of the academic year. In the case of England, this meant that the students had technically moved up to Year 9, but this was before the summer break, and the students were therefore still of an age that was suitable for comparison with French data.

The original research design would see data collected across three subjects for the same class. Barring the issues of access this would raise, this was intended to:

allow the researcher to be immersed more in the culture of the class as a group, as opposed to its simple expression with a specific teacher.

leave open the possibility to compare two subjects with as little extra variation as possible: the only difference between the subjects observed would amount to the teacher involved, the subject, and the physical circumstances.

Page 93

lead to the analysis of links made between different subjects; in particular, as to when knowledge from a given class was deemed appropriate in another class. This concern was particularly true in Skaro Motte, where special efforts had been made in the domain of

interdisciplinarité.

This was only possible to a limited extent in England, as the school where we collected our data operated setting: therefore, there were different groups in each subject. There, we simply made sure that the student who received particular attention was in all the groups.

As a result, we intended to film the classrooms of a set of three teachers who were in charge of the same student, and who did not object to being filmed. This was highly restrictive in terms of access. Consequently, there was very little control over the selection of the schools in which the research was conducted, although efforts were made to ensure that the schools were comparable. For instance, as French state secondary schools, the collèges publics, do not select their pupils, only comprehensive schools were approached in England.