Research Design

This study is situated within the qualitative research paradigm. Qualitative research is interested in gaining insight into and understanding of a phenomenon. One of the assumptions of qualitative research is that multiple realities are socially constructed through individual and collective definitions of a situation (McMillan and Schumacher, 1993). The present study assumed that the Expressive Arts teachers constructed realities in their classrooms individually and through interactions with learners. In so doing, they adapted, transformed or interpreted a curriculum to suit their situation. Also qualitative research could be described as an interpretive and naturalistic approach to the world (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). This study satisfies these descriptions in that I collected data in the natural setting and engaged in interpretation in order to construct meaning from the data. Among the strengths of qualitative research is its ability to illuminate the particulars of human experience in the context of a common phenomenon (McMillan and

Schumacher, 1993). It enables collection of multiple accounts of a common experience across participants as well as individual accounts in specific contexts.

The aim of this study was to explore how teachers are teaching Expressive Arts curriculum. I felt that this aim was consistent with those of the qualitative research approach. A qualitative research design was therefore used in this study: Illuminative evaluation. Since the topic is school-focused, multi-site case study, using the methodology of condensed fieldwork was also adopted as the method for this research. The development, principles, methodology and application of Illuminative evaluation were discussed in detail in Chapter 3. For this reason, the discussion here will suffice with a summary of its main principles and procedures.

The aim of Illuminative evaluation is to inquire into and ultimately to produce an adjudication of a phenomenon by using description and interpretation of a programme and issues are allowed to emerge as the inquiry proceeds. Issues that are ‘uncovered’ as significant are then pursued.

In evaluating educational phenomena, Illuminative evaluation distinguishes between two fundamental concepts, the ‘instructional system’ and the ‘learning milieu’. The instructional system is the ‘formalized plans and statements which relate to particular teaching arrangements.’ It includes ‘a set of pedagogic assumptions, a new syllabus, and details of techniques and equipment’ (Parlett and Hamilton 1976, p.89). However, it is essentially abstract and needs to be interpreted for a particular setting (Parlett and Hamilton 1976, p.89). This interpretation is manifested in the learning milieu, which is the ‘social-psychological and material environment in which students and teachers work together’ and a network of ‘cultural, social, institutional, and psychological variables’ that ‘interact in complex ways to produce a unique pattern of circumstances’ (Parlett and Hamilton 1976, p. 90). In Illuminative evaluation, both the instructional system and the

learning milieu are investigated, and the connections (or lack of connections) between the two – the ‘matches’ and ‘mismatches’ – are uncovered.

Parlett and Hamilton state that Illuminative evaluation ‘stands unambiguously within the anthropological paradigm’ (1976, p. 88-89). It is thus essentially an anthropological or ethnographic approach to evaluation and research. Ethnographers generally participate in the actual culture of the social group they are studying, so that the ethnographer himself or herself in fact becomes ‘the research instrument’ (Wolcott 1988, p. 190). Here they attempt to adopt an ‘emic’ or ‘insider's’ perspective of the group, and explore the activities and discourse of the group in such a way that they are ultimately able to produce a rich description of it, where possible in its own discourse in order to create a faithful representation of it (Fetterman, 1989, p. 30).

In investigating the instructional system and learning milieu, Illuminative evaluators may use ‘an eclectic set’ of methodologies (Miles 1981, p. 480), including both qualitative and quantitative methods (Parlett et al. 1977, p. 32). The main data collection methods are observation and interviews, which are complemented by questionnaires and documentary and background information study (Parlett and Hamilton 1976, p.94-96). Illuminative evaluation recognises the subjectivist nature of the data provided by participants as well as the opinions and judgment of the participants and evaluator. Certain methods can be used to reduce the subjectivity of findings, which include triangulation and the presentation of evidence in such a way that its quality can be judged (Parlett and Hamilton 1976, p.97). Illuminative evaluation does not claim to be value free, but aims ‘to represent different value positions, ideologies and opinions encountered’ during the investigation and to ‘represent them in ways considered fair by those holding these positions’ (Parlett and Hamilton 1977, p. 33). It is not the evaluator's responsibility to make a final adjudication that will determine the future of the evaluated programme, rather, the evaluator's role is to

present all the viewpoints of all the various participants and stakeholders, and decisions are then made by sponsors or management. Illuminative evaluation thus concentrates on the information gathering rather than the decision-making component of evaluation. The task is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex reality (or realities) surrounding the project: in short, to “illuminate”’ (Parlett and Hamilton 1976, p.99). Parlett and Dearden (1977, p. iii), after conducting a number of illuminative studies, concluded that the approach was particularly apt for evaluating programmes of the following nature:

1. Programmes that have complex goals that are difficult to define precisely;

2. Programmes that are ‘significantly distorted by the local character of the institution or dominated by other 'special' influences’, and

3. Progammes that are ‘clearly not suitable as candidates for formalized evaluation designs because, for instance, of lack of time, a paucity of standard data, or simply because of uncertainty about the precise questions to be answered by the evaluation exercise.’

The Expressive Arts curriculum is very well described by these characteristics. The aims and outcome statements of the curriculum are broad, rich statements (e.g. ‘create, interpret and present work’) which will also take on their own character depending on the contexts in which they are implemented. The local character of every school site will influence how the learning of the curriculum takes shape there. In the light of this, Illuminative evaluation may be considered as particularly apt for evaluating this curriculum.

Within the broader guiding framework of Illuminative evaluation, it is proposed to use a number of specific data collection methods to study the instructional system and the learning milieu of the Expressive Arts curriculum. The proposed methods for inquiring

into the instructional system and that for exploring the Expressive Arts learning milieu are discussed below in the section following the section on research sample.