Rationale for case study

“sometimes we simply have to keep our eyes open and look carefully at individual cases—not in the hope of proving anything, but rather in the hope of learning something!” (Eysenck (1976) quoted in Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 224)

Stake (2008, p. 119) defines a case study as ‘an interest in an individual case’, which must be clearly bounded. Here, the ‘case’ is the creative writing and associated writing experiences of 16-18 year-old students within the naturalistic context of a two-year A Level English Language course. This makes the research case study an ‘intrinsic case study … so that the stories of those “living the case” will be teased out’ (ibid, p. 121, author’s italics and quotation marks). Because the phenomenon of the students’ creative writing relates to the different lifeworld domains of the students, Yin’s (2009, p. 18) ‘technical definition’ supports the choice of case study, as it ‘investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context’, where ‘the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’. This

positions the case study in the theoretical framework of situated literacies, with particular reference to the New Literacy Studies, as explored in Chapter 2.

The unit of analysis is a group of five students in an A Level English Language class. This means that the course, school, class setting and student experiences are part of the unit of analysis, as well as the education policy that constitutes the students’ prior experiences of creative writing. In order to judge the legitimacy of knowledge-claims, sometimes the case study is judged against validity criteria. For example, Yin distinguishes between ‘construct validity’, ‘external validity’ and ‘reliability’ (2009, pp. 40 - 41). Construct validity is ensured by using multiple sources of evidence. External validity, Yin argues, could be achieved through enabling generalization to other socially constructed classroom creative writing practices, as ‘the investigator is striving to generalize a particular set of results to some broader theory’ (ibid, p. 43). Reliability, according to Yin, is achieved through demonstrating adherence to case study protocol and the use of a case study database, making it ‘replicable’. (Yin’s fourth test, internal validity, is not relevant to my case study as it is a descriptive study.) However, these tests for validity seem to attempt to judge the case study against positivist language which can distort the qualitative approach (Creswell, 2007, p. 202). A more interpretivist – and I would argue, legitimate approach to achieving validity would be the ‘credibility’ of the case study because the ‘[R]ich, thick description allows readers to make decisions regarding transferability’ (ibid, p209). Creswell supplies a list of criteria for evaluating a case study, avoiding Yin’s positivist language, ending by asking if ‘the researcher [is] reflexive or self-disclosing about his or her position in the study’ (ibid, p. 219). This is an important point for assessing the merits of a case study as it recognises the ethnographic nature of the approach, which depends on the

researcher’s role within the socially constructed context. Thomas (2010, p. 125, author’s italics) refers to ‘participant observers’ as essential to the strength of an interpretive case study. Similarly, Thomas, logically, finds reliability a problematic concept for case study (ibid, pp. 62-63) as the case is individual and would not be ‘consistent from one time to another or one researcher to another’. Therefore, this case study is judged on its ‘quality’ as defined by Thomas (ibid, pp. 67-68).

Thomas uses the term ‘triangulation’ (ibid, p. 68) as a key aspect defining quality, as, indeed, does Yin (2009, p114), for ‘establishing the construct validity and reliability of the case study evidence’ as multiple sources of evidence supply ‘converging lines of inquiry’ (ibid). However, the word ‘triangulation’ is avoided for this case study because the geographic metaphor is positivist, suggesting that there is ‘one truth’ as the focus of the triangulation, and that this could be identified, unproblematically. Instead, ‘quality’ is claimed for this present study because a kaleidoscopic approach is used. The kaleidoscopic metaphor represents the shifting nature of the situated literacy practice of creative writing and the attempt to investigate this

by using multiple lenses – of all participants, including my own, as insider-researcher. This approach inevitably implies the use of multiple methods, too.

This thesis is a representative case study with a longitudinal approach. The study’s sample of five participants was purposive (Bryman, 2012, p. 418). (The rationale for the purposive sampling is discussed below in methods, see 3.4.2). The students’ creative writing was described and explored over two years. This was to enable observation of the phenomenon over time, to build up an iterative and contingent view of the students’ writing and writing practices. It is a single case study of five participants from one class, yet it replicates the analysis tools across the participants. This allows several analytical conclusions to be drawn for the different participants, as findings can be compared. Although Yin (2007, p. 61) argues strongly that multiple-case studies are preferable to single-case studies because the latter are ‘vulnerable’ and do not have the possibility for ‘direct replication’, a single-case study was used because it has provided the opportunity to deepen the understanding of the students’ creative writing across time. A multiple-case study would have risked diluting the depth and richness of the case study.

However, I did utilise an earlier assignment within the EdD to pilot some of the methodology and to develop my pedagogy with the aim of enhancing the students’ opportunities to be creative (Caine, 2010b). In the earlier assignment, I employed an action research approach, experimenting with adapting the ‘domain mapping’ (Mannion and Ivanič, 2007, pp. 25 -26) for the context of the A Level English Language classroom. This proved to be an exciting addition to my pedagogy, and enhanced an already varied approach, developed prior to, and in the first two years of my doctorate. Just as the choice of case study was to allow me to provide a kaleidoscope of the creative writing of the participants, the pedagogy employed was also diverse.

Students begin the original writing coursework at the beginning of Year 12, while the writing for specific purposes is written in the winter term of Year 13. Therefore the choice of case study was driven by the ability to record the diverse components across the two year course. As the students are emerging from the restrictive practices driven by the GCSE syllabus at the beginning of the A Level course, original writing allows them a freedom they have not been used to. That is why the pedagogy has to open up the element of choice. This is done through ‘flipped learning’ (learning through active participation with the teacher acting as a facilitator), as well as other approaches. The course begins with the element of ‘flipped learning’, where the students work in groups to research and present on genres they are interested in and are reading for themselves. This encourages a dialogic approach to classroom practice that is at the heart of the two-year course. Concurrently, as the classroom teacher, I provide a range of

reading of ‘style models’ for linguistic and stylistic analysis. These range from Charles Dickens’ writing through the work of Katherine Mansfield’s short stories, to the dystopian work of Margaret Atwood and Cormac McCarthy. I also include literary fiction through the medium of film, with which most students are familiar – for example, Brokeback Mountain and I am

Legend – alongside extracts from the written texts. This involves students in reading both the

text and the film versions. The purpose is to raise and widen their reading and writing opportunities. Throughout both the student flipped learning and reading of style models, emphasis is placed on student creative writing tasks, as well as raising their metalinguistic awareness. The course has a strong linguistic component, with explicit development of grammatical knowledge. This enhances the creative writing of students as they become more aware of the linguistic choices they employ for particular effects through their own reading and that of close linguistic analysis, reinforcing Myhill’s (2005) research on creativity. During the period in which they are preparing to write their coursework, students write a series of shorter pieces, which they have the opportunity to discard, enhance or expand. At all times the element of student choice is emphasised, alongside shared reading and reading by a ‘critical friend’. This has the effect of raising their awareness and enjoyment of writing for the audience of their peers – a community of writers. Although there is no other creative writing component until towards the end of the two-year course, short reading and writing tasks are set regularly, employing the ‘community of writers’ approach, fostered at the beginning of the course. Therefore, students are prepared for when they have to write the second piece of coursework. The pedagogic approaches are similar to those taken for the earlier original writing, however, the emphasis is on non-fiction writing, which means that style models have to be aimed at specific audiences and for specific purposes. This is made more relevant to students by linking their reading to other subjects they are studying and encouraging them to read widely. For example, science students are encouraged to read articles from the New

Scientist.

Throughout the two year course, students are taken on regular trips to experience language in different contexts. For the original writing coursework, I run a writing workshop at the local library, where students complete a range of activities designed to help them find stimulus material for their own writing. They have the opportunity to touch and explore a range of artefacts that the museum prepares for them, ranging from the mummified foot of a child to the paw print of a dog in a Roman roof tile. They also explore the galleries for themselves while completing ‘scavenger hunt’ exercises. Further, students go on workshops to the British Library, where they are exposed to a wealth of English language artefacts through led sessions. This rich tapestry of pedagogy is designed to give the students guided freedom to connect with

their creativity in writing. I am privileged to teach in a grammar school, where all students on the course have achieved a grade A or B in GCSE, yet one of the hardest aspects of my teaching is to show the students that they have creative abilities, as they lack confidence when they arrive in the sixth form The WJEC syllabus for A Level English Language has the potential to be as limiting as the GCSE, as it provides lists of prescribed ‘acceptable’ genres. Yet within this possible constraint, I have seen students achieving original and creative writing for the few years before I started this research. It is this creativity that I was keen to investigate, using an in-depth, longitudinal case study to study this complex phenomenon.