Task 6a/6b: Critical Reflections of Inquiry Tools

After completing Reader 6 and undertaking further research into the use of inquiry tools in an educational setting, I have trialled a survey with my SIG, in addition to completing a trial interview over Skype with Lisa. I also completed an observation, but my critical reflections are included in my reflective journal. I was unable to trial a focus group, therefore I have had to consider the advantages and disadvantages of this tool a little differently.

Surveys and Questionnaires
I would like to collect student voice and opinion as part of my inquiry. I used reader 6 to inform my thinking on questionnaires, as I did not know a great deal about this topic. Through Reader 6, I found it interesting that questionnaire can them be followed up with interviews. Reader 6 also stated that questionnaires could produce quantitative data if the sample was representational  of the organisation. I have realised through my Module 2 work that taking a representational sample would not be realistic in the 12 week time limit, so therefore I was not sure whether I could still use a survey as a research method. I decided to conduct more research into this.

I found Bell (2014) very useful for increasing my knowledge about questionnaires. When devising a questionnaire, Bell (2014) outlines the different types of questions used in surveys: verbal/open, list, category, ranking, quantity, grid and scale. I then tried to use as many of these in my trial survey to see which question type best suited my purpose. In particular, I found Bell's (2014) section on 'Piloting the   questionnaire' extremely useful; especially the list of questions to ask pilot volunteers after they have completed the survey. I incorporated these questions in the feedback on my SIG and this greatly helped me when trying to improve my survey. Bell (2014) also states that, 'Opportunity samples of this kind are generally acceptable as long as the make up of the sample is clearly stated and the limitations of the data are realized' (p. 150). Therefore, if I did use a nonrepresentational sample in my inquiry, this would be acceptable as long as I noted the limitations of this in my data analysis.  

As a pilot tool, I created a survey on Survey Monkey designed for students to use, for my SIG trial. I understood that the survey wasn't relevant to my SIG members themselves, but as many of them are teachers they would understand how students would fill the survey out, still making it a valuable trial.

Advantages:
Using a survey to gather data of student voice is less time consuming than interviews. My SIG said that my pilot survey could be completed within 5 minutes. It is also easier to organise completion of surveys within a 12 week inquiry time. As an example, I could take three laptops into a class and ask students to rotate until the whole class has completed the survey through a web based program like Survey Monkey; the quantitative data is produced for you, making the data analysis much easier.

As I could not trial my survey with students, I also looked at educational research books to see what literature has been written about the advantages of students surveys. Menter et al. (2011) stated that questionnaires give shy students every opportunity to voice their opinions, as well as allowing all respondents to read every question on the questionnaire before answering, something that can not be done in an interview or focus group. Burton & Bartlett (2005) add that as students attend school everyday they become a 'captive audience' so surveys are easy to distribute and collect. Furthermore, they posit that questions can be read aloud to students who need extra support (Burton & Bartlett, 2005). With ethical considerations in mind, both Menter et al. and Burton & Bartlett (2005) add that questionnaires make anonymity easier within the research process.

Disadvantages:
I found it very difficult to design an appropriate, unbiased questionnaire that students would understand and be able to complete easily. My research topic is 'engagement', a term that the majority of students would not understand. As Bell (2014) states, students may not be able to complete the survey that includes vocabulary that they do not understand. I decided to use works such as 'enjoy' and 'like' in my survey, but no I think these are too ambiguous and leading. Students may misinterpret questions and therefore not be able to answer them, in turn not allowing me to collect the right data for my inquiry. I feel a focus group or interview may be more appropriate to discuss why students like/enjoy or dislike/don't enjoy topics because questions that they do not understand can be explained to them. Although I included open questions with response boxes, i didn't feel I had any real depth in the answers I received, this was particularly evident when respondents gave one work or short answers (as many students are likely to do so that they can complete the questionnaire quickly). I am unsure that surveys will be able to provide the depth of qualitative data I would like, enabling me to find out more about what students think is engaging in the classroom.

Burton & Bartlett (2005) argue that questionnaires in education rely on the good will of te students to answer all of the questions sensibly and appropriately - something that does not always happen. Students may rush to finish questionnaires without giving any real thought about the questions they are asked. Both Menter et al. (2011) and Burton & Bartlett (2005) identify that it is very difficult to have any in depth answers that will help the research to answer their research question, something that I found through my own trial. 

Interview

I wanted to increase my knowledge of classroom engagement through speaking to experienced practitioners in my place of work to find out their opinions and views about 'engagement'  in their subject areas, as well as the strategies that use in their classrooms. At first, I thought conducting interviews would be a fairly simple process. However, Reader 6 identifies that interviews need careful consideration, particularly when deciding whether to construct a structures, semi structure or open interview. Reader 6 also recognised that before creating questions, it is important to consider what data you need to complete the research and whether an interview is the most appropriate way to collect your desired information.

Again I used Bell (2014) to increase my understanding of interviews and to highlight areas that I needed to consider before trialling this tool. Bell (2014) states that even after written consent has been provided by the participant, it is vital that a verbal 'overview' is given to the participant before beginning the interview. This should include an explanation of where the information will be used. When recording interviews, Bell (2014) recognises that the research can't assume that all participants ill give consent for their interview to be audio recorded, so it is important to check this before the interview takes place in the verbal 'covering letter'. 

I conducted a trial interview over Skype with Lisa on Module 2 of the BAPP course. We organised a time over email that suited us both and used a video call to try out our devised interview questions. After my research into Bell (2014), I decided to try a semi-structured interview, where I devised a set of questions to ask, but I allowed time to add any additional questions that I thought were appropriate from the answers that the participants gave. Before trialling my questions, I created a draft consent letter and form, as well as a verbal 'covering sheet' to read to Lisa before the interview (Bell, 2014), including a questioning whether the participant was willing to have the interview audio recorded.

Advantages:

One of the main advantages of using an interview is that the researcher is able to gather data from specific questions to give specific answers, allowing the researcher to address their research question in detail (Bell, 2014). I found that by asking Lisa specific questions about engagement, I was able to get detailed answers that would help me to answer my inquiry questions. I also found a semi-structured interview allowed me to ask questions that were not necessarily part of my planned questions. For example, Lisa said that students who were good at subjects were more engaged in lessons. I was then able to follow this up  (Bell, 2014) by asking, 'So do you think engagement is linked with being good or feeling good about a subject?' The answer Lisa gave was really interesting ad relevant to my inquiry and it is something I would not have thought about if i had not asked her this question. However, after our trial interview, I feel I need to allow myself more time to reflect on the responses given by the interviewee before deciding whether to move on to the next 'structured' question or to follow this up with an 'unstructured' question, and not rush through the interview.

Another positive of using an interview as an inquiry tool is that respondents may feel more able to share their honest views and opinions that they wouldn't necessarily share in a focus group situation involving other members of staff. Moreover, it will be easier to organise a one-to-one interview with a staff member than coordinating available times for staff to attend a focus group within my place of work. Importantly, as I work in an school, I will be able to arrange face-to-face interviews with staff on the Academy premises either during the working day or after school, so this causes far less disruption than having to organise an interview over Skype/phone, as a result this will make the interview process more personal.

Disadvantages:
It took several emails to organise the trial interview with Lisa, and further emails to outline what we wanted to achieve in trialling this tool. This showed me that interviews can be time consuming and difficult to organise (Bell, 2014). It would take a considerable amount of time to ask for an interview, receive a response, send a consent letter and form, have this returned and then organise and conduct the interview.  Furthermore, out trial interview was organised on a shared good will. This would be one the challenges os using interviews in an educational setting, as staff are extremely busy, so although they may want to help, realistically they may not have the time to do this in their busy working days. Another disadvantages is that bias will ultimately try and 'creep in' to interviews because the interviewer will have opinions too, so it is even more important to ensure that self-discipline and critical thinking are used to eliminate bias from any interview (Bell, 2014). As part of my semi-structured interview, I used follow up questions to ask Lisa about specific things that I thought were worth exploring; although I ensured that there were no biases in my pre-planned questions, I felt some of my own biases started to influence the 'unstructured' follow up questions. This is something I really need to address before conducting the interviews in my Module 3 inquiry.

In terms of timescale, transcribing and making notes on interviews is a very time consuming process (Bell, 2014). Lisa agreed to have her interview audio recorded. but listening to the whole interview and pausing to select the quotes I wanted to use made this part of data collection very time consuming. Furthermore, Lisa did not have a Dictaphone to record her interview and she said that this made it difficult to write down exact quotes that were of interest. If a participant is unwilling to have their interview recorded, I will need to think I will will record the interview accurately, as making detailed notes is not easily achievable during an interview (Bell, 2014).

Focus Groups

I had considered using focus groups to gather information on student voice, similarly to both interviews and questionnaire. Yet, I had disregarded focus groups as an inquiry tool for my inquiry because I believed that students would not want to share their true opinions about subjects in front of a group and a gatekeeper. However, through reading Reader 6 , I understood that focus groups create a different dynamic to interviews, particularly due to the fact that the interviewer can create a supportive group atmosphere. Although focus groups may be harder to organise, manage and transcribe after the event has taken place, I wanted to research the possibilities of using a focus group in existing educational research literature.

I was unable to trial a focus group with my SIG, as this was unrealistic to ask members to participate in a focus group at a time that suited everyone. It was also unethical to trial a focus group in the Academy without parental permission and approval from the ethics board. Therefore, it was even more crucial for my own learning to conduct research into how focus groups are used in educational setting. 

Advantages:

Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2011) identify that one of the benifits of focus groups are tht, 'Children differ from adults in cognitive and linguistic development, attention and concentration span, ability to recall, life experience, what they consider to be important, status and power' (p. 433). As a result, focus group could be more appropraite that individual interviews, as it is less intimidating and actaully, 'encourages interaction between the group rather than simply a response to an adults questions (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011, p. 433).

Another source of literature that I found extremely useful for informing my thinking about focus group was Hennessy & Heary (2005) 'Exploring Children's view through focus groups'. Hennessy & Heary (2005) state that there had been an increase in the use of focus groups in education research over the last decade. They make a notable argument that, 'focus groups create a safe peer environment and replicate the type of small group setting that children are familiar with from their classroom work' (Hennessy & Heary, 2005, p 237). This statement showed me that a significant advantage of focus groups is that students will be more comfortable in this type of setting, as it is something they take part in on a day-to-day basis, unlike a one-to-one interview. This changed my thinking about the possibility of using a focus group within my own inquiry. Hennessy & Hear (2005) also posit that focus groups are particularly effective with groups that know each other well, as this creates a less intimidating environment, where students can discuss important issues. Within my workplace, this could be a particular advantage because classes of students know each other well, so this provides a perfect opportunity to create that supportive environment.

Disadvantages:

Organising a focus group can be very difficult. As mentioned before, the logistics of organising a focus group with my SIG proved unsuccessful. Therefore, I need to carefully consider if I will realistically be able to organise a focus group where every student participant can attend and, importantly, the gatekeeper can attend, which could be difficult in a busy school setting. 

Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2011) ascertain that as children have lesson control over their own lives that adults, it is even more crucial that the interviewer creates a supportive atmosphere, so that the students feel comfortable in a focus group setting. This could be a particular problem with younger students in KS3 of the school if the are involved (with parental permission) in my inquiry. Furthermore, the authors state that individual interviews are more appropriate for discussing issues that my be considered sensitive with adolescents, something that should be considered before using this in my inquiry. 

Hennessy & Heary (2005) have identified a variety of problems with focus groups with children, many of which need careful planning and consideration from the researcher. As an example, Hennessy & Heary (2005) state that the characters and personalities of the children within the group will have a huge impact on the group dynamic. Furthermore, ‘there is always the possibility that intimidation within the group may inhibit some of the individuals from making a contribution’, therefore, ‘an individual’s expressed opinion may be influenced by a desire to fit in with other group members’ (Hennessy & Heary, 2005, p. 239). This may then result in shy children not wanting to speak in front of the group. In this case Bell (2014, p 167) suggests using questions such as ‘Is that what everyone thinks?’ or ‘Does everyone agree with xyz?’ to involve shy participants. This technique requires practice to enable the interviewer to judge whether intervention in the group is needed, which could be a disadvantage in my inquiry as I may not have time to practice and perfect this technique.

Hennessy & Heary (2005) also argue that, in additional to the carefully balancing of personality, the gender of the participants should be considered with great importance, stating that, ‘large age discrepancies are likely to create an imbalance within the group in terms of needs and abilities and, as a result, may upset the group dynamic’ (p. 241). I need to ensure that I select an appropriate group of students to take part, so that there are no detrimental effects to the participants themselves or the inquiry results.

Both literature sources note that a skillful researcher is needed to ensure a successful focus group. The researcher should monitor the stress levels of every participant to ensure no harm is caused by the focus group process, including not exceeding a 1 hour time limit for children between the ages of 10-14 (Hennessy & Heary, 2005). After the focus group has taken place, the interviewer should remind participants that they are not to disclose any information shared within the focus group to anyone outside of the group(Hennessy & Heary, 2005).

Even after completing this research, I would like to ‘trial’ a focus group at the beginning of my Module 3 work when I have received ethical approval from the board, to really see whether a focus group would be appropriate for my inquiry project.

Conclusions

Overall, I think that trialing the research methodology has been a really valuable learning experience for me. When I started this process, I believe I was quite naïve in thinking that creating, trialing and selecting research tools would be a simple process. I think the most challenging part of this process was incorporating everything I had learned from ethical considerations (creating consent letters and forms) into questions in the surveys, interviews and focus groups that would be considered none bias (ethical research). I also found it difficult to trial tools with my SIG and then try to consider how these tools would need adapting in my inquiry within an educational setting, especially where students are involved.

I have now come to the following conclusions about each research tool:

• Survey/Questionnaire – I don’t feel there is any real depth in answers. It would be challenging to try and define the term ‘engagement’ to students in a survey; therefore they will be ill-equipped to answer the questions effectively.
• Interview – I believe that I would get real depth of answers from experienced practitioners and I think this would be the only way that I could realistically gather the data I need to answer part of my research inquiry. I will need to consider how to create none bias unstructured questions and how to give myself time to think clearly during an interview.
• Focus group – From my research, it seems that this tool is much more suitable for younger students in education, however the student selection would need careful consideration. I want to speak in more depth to staff in the school about the reality of holding a focus group in terms of gatekeepers and organisation. Would like to trial this method when I have been given ethical approval from the board at the beginning of my inquiry to ensure this method is appropriate.
• Observation – My critical reflections on this inquiry tool have formed part of my reflective journal.

Bibliography

Bell, J. (2014) Doing your Research Project: a guide for first-time researchers 6^th Edition. England: Open University Press.

Menter, I., Elliot, D., Hulm, M., Ewin, J. & Lowden, K. (2011) A Guide to Practitioner Research in Education. London: Safe Publications Ltd.

Burton, D. & Bartlett, S (2005) Practitioner Research for Teachers. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Hennessy, E. & Heary, C. (2005) ‘Exploring children’s views though focus groups’ Green, S. & Hogan, D (2005) Researching Children’s Experience: Methods and Approaches London: Sage. pp. 236-252.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education 7^th Edition. Oxon: Routledge.

Lisa Meiklejohn Blog

Task 5d: Ethical Dimensions of my Proposed Inquiry

Although I have posted on my SIG to discuss the ethical dimensions of my inquiry, I thought it was important to post on my blog also, in order to make the best use of my BAPP network to inform the ethical considerations within my proposed inquiry.

After my research and thoughts in Tasks 5a, 5b and 5c and the discussions I have had with other BAPP students via the blogs and online sessions, the following ethical issues have surfaced within my proposed inquiry within my workplace.

How do I record events from a lesson observation? Should I write with objectively (using Descriptive Ethics) or subjectively (using Normative Ethics)?

I am still unsure how I would record a lesson observation. I am interested in engagement within Performing Arts and Literacy, so I would like to conduct some observations to form part of my inquiry. I would like to see what sort of things engage students, how a students engagement fluctuations throughout lessons and what the reasons may be why a student is off task. However, deciding whether a student is off task is subjective, it is a matter of opinion, therefore I can never be fully objective during an observation. This could possible result in a bias inquiry.

Should I use overt or covert observations in my inquiry?

It has been made evident through my research into ethics, that permission needs to be given by gatekeepers and teaching staff before observing in a lesson. It is also clear that students and parents need to be fully aware of everything that is taking place within an inquiry and that they are part of an inquiry. Written consent needs to be given. However, if observations are part of the inquiry, does students need to be aware that an observation is taking place? As an example, if I were observing a lesson to see how many times a student is ‘off-task’ or ‘disengaged’, would a student act differently if they knew they were being observed? There is potential that a student will try harder to be more engaged if they know they are being observed. There is also potential of the opposite happening and students will try to be disengaged.

How should I deal with ‘bad behaviour’ in my inquiry?

I would like to be able to understand why students engage in subjects from their point of view. To do this, I would like to interview students to try and understand why they like or dislike Performing Arts and Literacy. I want students to be able to express their views openly and honestly within my inquiry, but what if this compromises the behaviour policy of the school that I researched as part of the ethics section of this Module? For example, if a student says something that is disrespectful or rude about a member or staff or students in their class during an interview when expressing an opinion, how should I deal with this? Within my normal working day, I would absolutely ensure the student understood this was not acceptable behaviour and they did not do this again. However if a negative working relationship, between a member of staff or peer, is the reasons that they do not like a subject, I can’t not include this in my inquiry.

In this situation like this, I feel that I would remind the student that that kind of behaviour is not tolerated within the school and give them the opportunity to think about what they have said and give them a chance to rephrase what they have said to give their opinion honestly, but without being disrespectful.

How will I outline the aims of my inquiry and what it involves clearly to both parents and students? How will I make it clear and easy for students to withdraw at any time?

Since researching Oliver (2010) and Nolan & Putten (2007) in Task 5c, I now understand that it is vital that both parents and students understand the inquiry fully before participating and giving consent. I thought of writing letters to the parents/carers of students who are directly involved in the inquiry to gain written permission. In this letter I want to outline my inquiry aims clear. I also feel that putting my contact information on the letter advising parents/carers to contact me if they have any queries would be best practice. I have considered holding a meeting for parents/carers, but I don’t know if this is unnecessary or even too impractical to carry within the twelve-week inquiry time? I also want to make it clear that students can withdraw at ant time and putting this is language that is appropriate to their age and ability is crucial. However, I do not want students to feel intimidated about withdrawing. Would it be feasible to have another member of staff within the Academy that the students could ask to be withdrawn from the inquiry?

When considering my inquiry, I feel that I am still unsure how of how I would solve these potential ethical issues that may arise within my inquiry. I would very much appreciate opinions and discussions on any of the points I have raised.

Online Session 28th October – Ethics

Having attended the online session with Eleanor, Granger, Tom and Paula, I decided to take a ‘step back’ and look at my learning through Module 2 so far. I can sometimes feel a bit overwhelmed by all the information in the Readers, my own research, ideas introduced by literature, online Module discussion and discussions on the blogs and the SIGs. However, I’m sure this is a common feeling amongst many on the BAPP course...

I wanted to highlight a couple of aspects within the discussion that I found particularly useful and have reflected upon these in the last couple of days. Firstly, Paula noted that ‘professional courtesy goes a long way’ within the inquiry process. When there are pressures of a combined workload of a full-time job and studying, this can often mean that you put yourself in situations where the stress becomes overwhelming and this can impact upon your colleagues (something that I learned through reflection in Module 1). Within Part 4 in Module 2, I learnt that the inquiry can actually benefit the organisation as a whole, so working courteously with colleagues is vital in the inquiry process.

I also wanted to discuss the idea of overt verses covert when observing lessons within my inquiry. As an example, I discussed the idea that students could behave differently in the lessons if they know that they are being observed, especially in terms of effort and behaviour. I mentioned this during the session and Paula discussed that an observation is much less obtrusive than an interview. Therefore if the member of teaching staff and school gives permission, observing students is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. I would still like to discuss this further with my employers and colleagues in my place of work.

Finally, Paula also stated that it is perfectly acceptable to take certain things into our reflective journals to think about. Sometimes posting certain information and events onto a blog is not appropriate in an ethical sense. I now think that I would like to do this more in my studies. Particularly, how I would handle the potential issues that could arise within my inquiry. I plan to do this over the next couple of days.