Mutch (2013) defines the term ‘method’ as “a coherent set of strategies or a particular process that you use to gather one kind of data” (p. 104). This study adopted multiple
methods to source its data. The three main data collection methods for this study were
interviews, researcher fieldnotes, and a Quality Learning Circle. These methods were selected for their consistency with qualitative research methods and because they offered an
appropriate and efficient way to gather information for this study. An outline of each approach is listed below.
4.6.1 Interviews
I selected interviewing because it seemed to be a useful way to understand how people “symbolize their experience through language” (Seidman, 2013, p. 8). It allowed participants to respond to questions using their own experiences and provided an
understanding of how they interpreted their reality. Additionally, because the interview is a conversation between a researcher and participant there was an opportunity to check that the participant had understood the question. There are three primary types of interviews:
structured, semi-structured, and unstructured, with each type offering its own advantages and disadvantages. Semi-structured interviews were chosen for this research because they
allowed me as the researcher to directly ask key questions that were pertinent to the study,
61
whilst allowing the participants to answer in an open-ended and reflective manner (Mutch, 2013).
Before beginning my data gathering I completed a pilot interview with a teacher who was not participating in the study to check whether there were any alternative interpretations of the questions and also to ensure that the questions allowed me to gain data about which I was curious. This process allowed me the opportunity to refine my questions and practice my interviewing skills prior to commencing the study. For example, after the pilot interview I changed one question from asking about the most challenging student the teacher had worked with, to naming a recent challenging student they had worked with, to avoid teachers
becoming ‘stuck’ on ‘the most’ part of the question. In addition, I also formulated prompts for each question to make sure that during the interview I would stay focused on each question.
Interviews were conducted at two points during this research; the initial interviews were carried out one week prior to commencement of the first group meeting (later explained as a Quality Learning Circle, QLC) and the final interviews were completed the last week of the QLC. A full copy of the both interview schedules is presented in Appendix Three. Interviews were conducted face to face and a list of questions determined prior to the interview guided the process. The interview schedule was given to the participants in advance to give them a chance to think over the questions and not be ‘put on the spot’. All interviews took place at a venue and a time that was negotiated with participants once consent forms had been received.
Each interview was recorded using a dictaphone to ensure that all the information gathered was available for analysis (Merriam, 2009). Upon completion, each interview was then transcribed.
Each of the initial interviews commenced with background information on the teachers, such as the amount of years they had spent teaching, as well as what they found satisfying and frustrating about their job. This allowed me to place the teachers in a context, relating to their personal experiences of being a teacher. In addition, these background questions were
intended to help the participants feel comfortable giving answers, and for the interviews to be more of a conversation between interested individuals rather than an interrogation. In regards to the initial interview, the main questions were designed to:
62
gauge how the teachers experienced challenging behaviour, how they dealt with it and how it affected their classroom environment;
understand what kind of professional development they had in relation to managing challenging behaviours;
establish areas of interest among the participants in regards to NVC; and
determine their preferred style of learning.
A further round of interviews, referred to as the final interviews, were used to determine any practical changes made by the participants, their thoughts on the QLC process, development of NVC ideology, applicability of NVC in the classroom, and interest in continuing the learning into NVC. This included questions that asked:
what ways they had incorporated NVC into their teaching practice;
how NVC had affected their emotional awareness;
how the quality learning circle aligned with their preferred learning style; and
the perceived benefits and limitations of both the NVC and QLC approach.
The decision to undertake two interviews gave me the opportunity to compare the teachers’
experiences of both the NVC and QLC model at the beginning and end of the research. In addition, opting for semi structured interviews allowed me to be flexible in my responses to the participants. I was able to ensure that the questions asked in the interview were clear, as I could repeat and rephrase questions for participants where necessary. The interview situation also enabled me to probe participants for more information if I felt it was necessary to extend or clarify their contributions (Burns, 1997). Next, I examine the process by which I
documented my own note taking throughout the research.
4.6.2 Fieldnotes
Fieldnotes constitute the formal and informal collection of data preceding, during, and after “immersion in the field” (Mutch, 2013, p. 144). They are an important part of qualitative research as they allow the researcher to collect and remember data from observational
sessions in order to understand the complexities behind them better (Martella, Nelson, Morgan, & Marchand-Martella, 2013). In this research, I used a combination of descriptive, reflective, and analytical fieldnotes. Descriptive fieldnotes were used to accurately document factual data, settings, actions, behaviours, and conversations that I observed (Bogdan &
Bilken, 1992). Reflective fieldnotes involved recording my thoughts, ideas, questions, and
63
concerns alongside my observations. Analytical fieldnotes were used to explore any emerging patterns and themes that I noticed. For example, I noticed similarities in the teachers’
experiences of NVC techniques used within their classrooms. Wallen and Fraenkel (2011) state that the use of field notes in educational research prompts the researcher to constantly re-evaluate the questions they ask and the relevance of the data that is collected and I heeded that advice. As a researcher I took detailed fieldnotes straight after each QLC session while the information was fresh in my memory and reviewed these fieldnotes in order to provide ideas for planning the subsequent meetings. I now turn to introduce the Quality Learning Circle model to define and justify this data gathering method for my study.
4.6.3 Quality Learning Circle
As already discussed in the literature review, and outlined in Figure 5 below, the QLC model is comprised of four key points: a shared focus, conversation about practice,
experiential learning, classroom observation, and reflective analysis (Lovett & Verstappen, 2004). These points lead teachers to establish a professional culture of active inquiry in order to improve their practices in contextually relevant ways.
Figure 5: The four key elements of a Quality Learning Circle
The decision to adopt a QLC approach in this research was chosen for two main reasons.
First, to counter teachers working alone so that shared responsibility in direction and decision making would encourage empowerment among the teachers. Second, I believed the teachers
2) Conversation about practice
3) Experiential learning
4) Classroom observation 5) Reflective
analysis
1) A shared focus
64
needed to participate in group learning and learning by experience for me to capture the ways they were able to translate the model to their practice (Pomeroy, 2007). Southworth (2004) argues that “learning partnerships can increase the power of experiential learning”, by combining multiple forms of learning (p. 140). In the case of this research, NVC strategies were learnt through a QLC model, specifically through a reflective process of teachers supporting one another with their questions in, on, and about their practice. Through being reflective, teachers were encouraged to ask questions surrounding their experiences and use sense-making as a way that they could come together and question, challenge, and support one another thorough talk. Both Bruner (1996), as well as Stoll, Fink, and Earl (2005) agree that reflective learning can have a positive impact on the learning experience. Kolb (1984) outlines this below in relation to an educational process:
Figure 6: Experiential Learning (Kolb, 1984)
Kolb’s diagram (Figure Six) shows the relationship between three core concepts: education, work and personal development. Through a process of experiential learning (in this case the QLC), a reflective framework was provided that supported teachers in creating new and personally relevant NVC teaching strategies in a context that was focused and supportive of their needs within an educational environment. Ovens (2000) maintains when teachers adopt reflective practices they become more responsive to their students and the dynamic nature of the classroom. Through asking themselves what areas they can still improve on, the
usefulness of activities they utilise, and whether the relationships they maintain with their students hinders or helps learning in the classroom, teachers can be helped to create environments that encourage positive change.
65
In addition to reflective practices through experiential learning, the QLC approach was actively employed for its potential to construct knowledge that was socially relevant to the teachers. As Meyer (2001) states, the acquisition of practical knowledge can help to uncover how meaningful something is and whether it is appropriate in a given set of circumstances. I therefore adopted an interpretive approach within the framework of the QLC to explain the motivations and beliefs of the teachers in relation to their actions and the journey they took towards learning and developing their professional practice and personal belief systems.
4.6.4 Modifications of the QLC approach
While there are some common and defining features of the QLC model, such as collaboration and reflection, the model also allows for some flexibility. I now turn to illustrate this flexibility and show how I have modified the model in comparison to Stewart and Prebble’s (1993) original model below. The areas that have been modified are indicated in light blue (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Characteristics of a QLC (adapted from Stewart & Prebble, 1993)
According to Stewart and Prebble (1993), the QLC model promotes active learning through teachers’ becoming responsible for choosing what and how they learn. This typically involves small groups of teachers who meet at regular intervals to collaborate and reflect on
2) Share stories
66
their practices. The first difference in the way I have presented the QLC relates to the selection of a theme. In Stewart and Prebble’s model, themes are chosen during the QLC by the participants. In my research, a central theme was already chosen prior to the QLCs commencement; namely, NVC. Teachers were recruited who already had an interest in developing this teaching tool in the classroom. However, while this central theme was pre-determined, areas of interest were chosen by the teachers during the QLC. The second difference surrounded the use of classroom observation by QLC members. While this is a central theme in Stewart and Prebble’s model, it was not in mine. Instead, observation was an option that was discussed with participants before the study commenced. However, while they showed initial interest, the group members chose not to take this path. I chose to discuss having observation as an option, rather than a necessity, as I did not want the teachers to feel pressured or uncomfortable at the prospect of being observed trialling a relatively new approach.