Reflective practice

Being aware of my own learning has led to a long-standing interest in the epistemology of being a 'reflective practitioner' (Kinsella, 2007). Reflective inquiry was first outlined by John Dewey in the 1930s as ‘intentional, systematic inquiry that is disciplined and that will ultimately lead to change and professional growth for teachers’ (Farrell, 2012, p.13). The term

108

‘reflective practitioner’ was then used by Donald Schön in the 1980s and has been widely quoted throughout my educational career. Schön contends that ‘by observing and reflecting on our actions we can sometimes formulate constructions that account for the tacit knowledge revealed in what we do… Such knowledge is integrally tied to an artistry of practice’ (Kinsella, 2007, p.401). Another way to stimulate professional reflection and challenge to practitioners’ tacit knowledge and beliefs is by attending to emerging contradictions, but trust is needed for these to surface (Hartley, 2007). It is possible that in conducting an AI with the class, a teacher would confront contradictions in his or her theory of practice that may lead to transformations in beliefs and ensuing actions.

Listening to children's perspectives about their learning experiences can provide a powerful stimulus for professionals to reflect upon their practice, in my view. It is one way in which teachers can become more aware of the impact of their actions and develop empathy and authentic care for the children they teach (Gibbs and Costley, 2006). It could potentially be enlightening for the teacher(s), children and myself as research facilitator just to focus on reflection as our main research and learning tool throughout the AI, capturing our interpretations of working together to create new understandings and applications of pedagogy.

Critical reflection can lead people to make changes within their professional lives (Gardner, 2009), especially when the reflection extends to deeper levels of core professional identity and mission (Korthagen and Vasalos, 2005). However, I judged that reflection alone would not support the robust gathering and analysing of a wide range of qualitative and quantitative data as part of an exploratory study.

109

Table 8: Implications from the pupil participation literature review (see Section 3.9) for my research methodology

Key principles emerging from literature review

Implications for research methodology

Methodological decisions and actions

All children have a right to participate in research about matters that affect them in school and are competent to do so, regardless of age or ability.

 The research needs to be inclusive and involve the whole class.  The AI methodology and

language may need to be adapted – children should be involved in this too.

 All children in each of the three classes were invited to participate. I gave a presentation to each class to inform them of the intervention and the research processes. Children were also informed about their right not to participate.

 The teachers were involved in planning the AI so that adaptations could be made to include all vulnerable children and those with Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND).  The children were asked for their ideas for

improvement to each part of the process to ensure all were equally included.

Children’s participation in research must have influence (as well as space, voice and

audience).

 The outcomes of an AI with children, focusing on writing lessons, must lead to real curriculum and pedagogic changes in the classroom.  The AI must be given sufficient

time for ideas to be developed and implemented.

 The teachers were supported to understand and allow time for the creation and implementation of real activities that the children devised as part of the AI.

 The time given for each part of the AI was at least one lesson, but remained flexible within the constraints of each school.

 Teachers, supported by the facilitator (myself), negotiated and shared power with children regarding what was possible in the time available.

110 The research topic and

methodology should be

negotiated with children and their teacher(s), enabling children to be involved in decision-making.

 Children need to be involved in decisions relating to the planning and implementation of the AI.  Children can be involved in

decisions about any aspect of the writing curriculum.

 The topic of inquiry was discussed and refined at the outset with each of the teachers and their classes.  Aspects of the AI were negotiated with the teachers

and children at the planning stage and throughout its implementation.

 The children made their own decisions about the curriculum as part of the AI.

The research should be developed as collaborative research with the children and their teacher(s) working as co-researchers.

 Careful facilitation would be needed, with support for adults who would be adapting their stance.

 It would be important to investigate the issue of power sharing between teacher(s) and children in the research.

 The aims of the research were made explicit to teachers and children at the outset.

 My own beliefs about participation were acknowledged alongside genuine and explicit respect for others who do not share my views.  Individual interviews with each of the teachers

aimed to help them to explore their beliefs about pupil participation.

 Support was provided throughout the facilitation of the project to enable issues relating to power-sharing to be discussed and negotiated.

The school(s) chosen should be responsive to the idea of children as co-researchers and ready for the challenge of taking student voice work to this next step.

 The schools approached should have some interest in developing pupil participation, with

leadership support.

 The children and their teacher(s) would be invited to take part in an AI that involves investigating best learning experiences as well as evaluating the AI in order to develop this way of working.

 The head teachers were approached

opportunistically after they had expressed an interest in pupil participation within professional contexts unrelated to this research. Early checks were made to ensure congruence between school values and the use of AI.

 A set of ‘contracts’ were devised, making explicit the commitment needed by each of the stakeholders, including myself as research facilitator, so that the research participants could give (or withhold) their informed consent.

111 5.6.2 Action research

There is a long tradition of action research as an approach to support professional development in schools from the 1920s onwards (Carr, 2006). Foreman-Peck and Murray (2008) suggest that ‘it is not so much the ‘research findings’ that are significant but rather the action research approach to professional development itself’ (p.148). It is a form of critical social science where teachers engage in critical theorising with emancipatory intent, and can transform practices (Kemmis, 1993, cited in Bryant, 1996, p.110). It can also provide a rigorous framework for innovative professionals to ‘insert their experiences into a consistent professional discussion’ (Altrichter, 1993, p.53).

But AI is ‘quite different from action research’ (Bushe, 2010b, p.3). The distinction lies in generating new actions based on uncovering and using the very best experiences of the past, rather than starting from ideas about how to tackle an area of weakness or a shared problem.

Participants reflecting upon each stage of an AI in order to improve its future application in schools could fall into a collaborative action research model of practice. At each stage of the AI, the children and teacher(s) would act as ‘action researchers’ by doing AI activities and then reflecting on the process in order to learn how AI may be improved for future use. But each stage of the AI is distinct and separate: reflection and improvement would not necessarily change how the next stage would be presented. I consequently judged that cycles of action research and learning might afford a more appropriate research methodology for a much longer term study of the implementation of several AIs over time.

112 5.6.3 Realistic Evaluation

Realistic Evaluation (Pawson and Tilley, 1997) was given careful consideration as a potentially helpful structure to enable identification of contexts and mechanisms that help to facilitate successful outcomes of an AI with children. It would enable the construction of programme theories (Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configurations) that could be tested and refined. Initial programme theories based on CMO configurations were even derived from the literature and written into child-friendly language in order to experiment with the feasibility of using this approach. A Realistic Evaluation of an AI particularly would enable contextual factors to be explored: for example, how the culture of pupil participation in the class or school at the outset may influence the outcomes of an AI.

However, there is no evidence in the literature of Realistic Evaluation being used to evaluate an AI and very little (as yet) exploration of children’s capacity to engage meaningfully in such an evaluative process (the focus groups of children in the doctoral research of Webb (2011) being a notable exception). With both AI and Realistic Evaluation being new processes in terms of the involvement of children, I was concerned that there would not be a sufficient evidence-base from which to form a robust study, and the limitations of each could compromise the study as a whole. I considered it more appropriate to investigate whether AI is a useful approach to empowering all children within a class to be involved in decision- making and exploring its potential impact, rather than attempting to use Realistic Evaluation with the children to investigate why or how it works, for whom and in what circumstances.