Research ethics

Since any social research has the potential to impact on the lives of people participating in it, consideration must be given to the ethical issues associated with the research processes (Cohen et al., 2007). This research was conducted in accordance with the principles of good practice set forth in such documents as BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (2011), the Code of Practice on Research Ethics developed by the University of Derby (2011), as well as the Israeli 1981 Privacy Protection Act (Israel. Ministry of Economy, 1981).

The fundamental principles, which are regarded as the cornerstone of ethics in human research, are beneficence (do positive good) and non-malfeasance (do no harm). The Code of Practice on Research Ethics developed by the University of Derby (2011: 1) articulates that beneficence implies the obligations to serve the interests and wellbeing of others, including respect for their rights, and must be based on the principle of “doing good in the widest sense”. Beneficence also means that the research results should contribute to knowledge. The BERA guidelines hold that the aim of educational researchers is to extend knowledge and understanding in all areas of educational activity and from the perspectives of learners, educators, policymakers and the public (BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, 2011). In the present study, the investigation was driven by the necessity to examine the effectiveness of the HOTS intervention programme in order to examine the impact thereof on the instruction and learning practices in an Arab school. It was expected that the results of this study would serve the interests of Arab teachers and students by identifying the ways of a more effective implementation of the new educational policies.

Non-malfeasance refers to the principle of ‘doing, or permitting, no official misconduct’ (University of Derby. Code of Practice on Research Ethics, 2011: 1). This means that the concern for the interests of participants and maintaining ethical standards of integrity and respect for them

74

must always prevail over the interests of research. The researcher was aware of the necessity of protecting the research participants from psychological harm, avoiding the situations that may cause them to experience negative feelings or emotions (Cardwell & Flanagan, 2005). Following this principle, the researcher accorded due respect to the study participants.

Following the principle of non-malfeasance, participation in the research should be on the basis of the informed consent, with the rights of privacy of participants being guaranteed. The BERA guidelines (2011) emphasise that researchers ensure that all participants in the research understand the process in which they are to be engaged. The participants should be given accurate information as to why their participation is necessary and how the research will be reported. Appendix 1 includes the informed consent from the school teachers, students and parents of the students involved in this study, providing information about the purpose of the research. The researcher informed the participants about how the research data will be stored and how it will be used. This consent was requested by the researcher in advance of the collection of data. During the meetings with the potential participants, the researcher provided accurate explanations of the research purpose and methods and possible applications of this study, as well as the benefits it might provide for improving the teacher and student performance. The research design was transparent and the data collected were discussed with the informants and peer researchers.

The participants were assured that their right for confidentiality and anonymity would be preserved, unless they expressly waive this right (University of Derby. Code of Practice on Research Ethics, 2011).Their anonymity was maintained by using coded data and fictitious names, including the name of the school which served as the research setting. At the same time, researchers must also recognize the rights of participants to be identified with any publication of their original works or other inputs (BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, 2011). Researchers must have permission from participants if there is a need to disclose personal information to third parties. The researcher assured the participants that once they had decided to participate, they would be able to withdraw from participation at any time and with no penalty if they found the process unacceptable to them for any reason whatsoever. The safety, wellbeing, rights and dignity of the research participants would be maintained.

75

The researcher was well aware of the fact that he has influence over participants in terms of the research design, implementation, and the final reporting of the data (Blakeslee & Fleischer, 2007). This particularly concerns the qualitative part of this study which was intended to produce the detailed data on participants’ experiences, thus increasing the risk of participant exposure (Creswell, 2013; Charmaz, 2006). Ethical issues such as confidentiality and non-malfeasance are particularly important in conducting an insider research (Smyth & Holian, 2008). Being an insider researcher, on the one hand, has the advantage of having a greater understanding of the environment being studied and an established intimacy that promotes telling and interpreting the information (Sema, 2012; Smyth & Holian, 2008). As insider researchers know the institution from inside, they know how to best approach and interact with people. On the other hand, there are problems associated with balancing the insider role and researcher role (Smyth & Holian, 2008).

Because of the familiarity with research participants and awareness of institution’s politics, a greater sense of protection must be ensured to participants (Mercer, 2007). In case of this study, the researcher is a member of the school staff, but does not possess any power and authority over the staff, which may have a negative impact on the data collection process (Sema, 2012). The researcher also tried to overcome some of the disadvantages of insider research by taking a preventative approach. Potential participants were informed that the researcher would follow the principle of ‘empathic neutrality’ (Patton, 2002: 50) so that the familiarity with respondents would not affect the process of collecting and interpreting the research data. Constant reflexivity and self- scrutiny were aimed to reduce prejudice in collecting and interpreting the research data as much as possible.

It is important, therefore, that the aims and process of the research are as transparent as possible to ensure that it is clear what the researcher intends to achieve. Sufficient time was given for potential participants to understand and consider the information about the research and what was expected of their participation. The researcher was careful to avoid the exploitation of participants for the purposes of his study, including the use of participants’ goodwill and the lack of power by participants to resist demands and requests. He sought to adhere to the ethic of ‘minimal intrusion’

76

into participants’ lives in order to minimise the impact of his research on them (BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, 2011).

3.4.7 Summary

In the current research project, a mixed method study was chosen to carry out the holistic examination of a single phenomenon within its social context. It has been stated previously that the implementation of the HOTS programme in the Arab educational sector is in its initial phase. It was decided, therefore, to conduct a mixed method design investigation in one school in order to identify the factors associated with the programme implementation. Within scholarly discussions of school effectiveness, the use of mixed methods research is justified in situations where “complex and pluralistic social contexts demand analysis that is informed by multiple and diverse perspectives” (Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, Sylva, Melhuish, Taggart & Elliot, 2005: p. 221). More weight was attached to qualitative tools, since it was important to examine the process of the programme implementation through exploring the views of the research stakeholders.The results were expected to create a basis for the reflection on the impact of the HOTS programme on the Arab school culture.

There are some noteworthy limitations of this study. It should be noticed that in both strands of the mixed method study, the researcher deals with participants’ perceptions of the methods used or skills applied. Due to the time constraints on the part of the researcher and study’s participants, no additional tests were carried out at the time of conducting this in order to measure participants’ thinking skills and receive the data which might confirm the improvements in their thinking abilities. Such methods were planned for further investigations of implementing the HOTS programme in the school under study. According to an interpretivist approach, subjectivity is pervasive, as the data collected by qualitative tools reflect different perceptions of social phenomena and researchers have the tendency to be subjectively immersed in the subject of the study (Cohen et al., 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Bryman, 2004). Quantitative surveys, on the other hand, do not create the opportunity to study things in a natural setting and discuss the meaning social phenomena have for different people. In addition, questionnaires have some disadvantages in that the wording of questions might affect respondents’ responses and their answers can be inaccurate and questionable (Brown, 2001; Gillham, 2000).

77

In the quantitative strand, the teacher control group was formed on a voluntary basis, which might cause a non-random selection bias. Open-ended questions, which might shed more light on participants’ perceptions of the HOTS-related activities, were included only into the questionnaire for students. In the qualitative strand, using classroom observation as a data collection tool was considered by the researcher, but since teachers were not in favour of this activity, observations were not conducted. At this stage of investigation, individual interviews with student participants, which could provide more insight into students’ understanding of the HOTS-based learning, were not conducted. Instead, students’ written responses to open-ended questions in the questionnaire were considered the sources of data on the perceptions of a large number of students. Interviews with students were planned for further investigation of implementing the HOTS programme.

Several features of this study’s methodology are expected to serve as measures for overcoming the limitations of this study. The qualitative approach dominates during the investigation and the interpretation phase of the study. It has been argued that, in some instances, qualitative dominant mixed methods have the power to capture the complexity of some educational and social issues (De Lisle, 2011; Creswell et al., 2006). Although observations were not conducted, teacher individual and focus group interviews were used as well as a wide range of documentary sources. As to the quantitative part of the study, the use of instruments with mixed item format, both multiple-choice and open-ended, is intended to enhance the questionnaire’s internal reliability and allows for a more complete representation of both the cognitive and dispositional aspects of HOTS (Ku, 2009; Boynton & Greenhalgh, 2004; O’Cathain &Thomas, 2004). The assumption was that by comparing qualitative and quantitative results, a reliable basis could be established for the research inferences (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Morse & Niehaus, 2009; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). A concurrent mixed method design is considered to offer a strong basis for triangulation and it is useful in offsetting the weakness within one method with the strength of another method (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Bryman, 2006).

To ensure the validity and reliability of the data collection methods and sampling strategies, the researcher explicitly explained different procedures of collecting data and tried to be constantly self-critical and reflexive with regard to the process of study. To reduce the influence of

78

researchers' personal perspectives on reporting, peer reviewing and respondent validation were used. A number of steps were taken to ensure the construct validity of the questionnaires and internal consistency of the questionnaire items. There were attempts to minimize the impact of confounding variables. The same questionnaires were used for pre-and post-testing and they were completed under the same conditions. The researcher constantly monitored the implementation of the intervention, being in contact with teachers from the intervention and control groups. There has been no participant dropout during the implementation of the programme. Although the control group teachers volunteered for this study, they represented almost the half of the teacher staff in the school under study (out of forty five teachers, twenty three teachers formed the control group). This factor helped to offset a non-random selection bias. Writing methodological memos and continuous revision of in the cyclical analysis helped to prevent the problem of overlooking certain routine processes and behaviours (Sema, 2012). The factors that reduced the limitations of study’s methodology are also discussed in chapter 5.

79

4. FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings of the mixed method study that has examined the process and outcomes of developing HOTS of students from an Arab high public school. The qualitative and quantitative investigations were carried out concurrently, with the two types of data being collected and analysed separately and results being merged at the point of interpretation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Creswell et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2007). Accordingly, this chapter consists of the two major sections: the results of qualitative investigation and results of quantitative study.