ANÁLISIS DE LA NORMATIVA VIGENTE SOBRE LA PROTECCIÓN DE LOS

There have been various calls for social ‘science’ researchers to provide a ‘natural history of the inquiry’ (Erickson, 1986, 152) and a ‘muddy boots and grubby hands’ (Punch, 1986) account of the research experience: ‘More deeply than in a sheer ‘methods’ account, we should see how key concepts emerged over time; which variables appeared and disappeared; which codes led into important insights’ (Punch, 2009, 338; see also Miles and Huberman, 1994). This is addressed in chapter six,

Preparation, Piloting and Evaluation. However, this chapter commences such an engagement through discussing the articulation of the research questions, key stages, and influential experiences in the research journey.

The initial questions for the research were: is sustainable development presented as an opportunity to create something better in the secondary school curriculum?; where are the opportunities to challenge the status quo and each other’s

engage in social action and designing a better future? The initial questions and aims remained a source of inspiration for the knowledge generation throughout the research, reminding me of the personal reasons for commitment to the action research project. They acted as a springboard, in that I initially understood my main focus would be to pilot a project with the theoretical underpinnings for ‘strong sustainability’ and then evaluate the current curriculum in respect to such questions, with teachers and pupils.

An overview of the influences on, and direction of changes, through the research is presented in Figure 3 (1). Throughout the research the questions were reframed to encompass a comprehensive and practical research remit, as introduced in Table 3 (1). Research questions evolved and were re-framed as an appreciation of the field, including the ‘input’ of co-researchers, influenced the formation of the questions. This is expanded on in chapter six through the documentation and initial reflections on practice, and in the analysis of practice and theory in chapter seven.

Concern over how to respond to the case for change (as presented in chapter 2) ↓

Commitment to basic conceptual framework for EfS articulated through reference to design thinking and utopianism (chapter 4)

↓

Commitment to practice and theory of action research, rather than desire to do a PhD (chapter 3) ↓

Articulation of guiding questions:

What must be considered in developing a strategy for EfS at a secondary school level and what conclusions can be drawn from linking theory to practice?

↓

Chapter 6: Preparation, Piloting and Evaluating

↓

Scoping stage to define research remit:

Conversations with teachers and influential experiences included in Table 3 (2) ↓

↓

Pilot in first school

Working with teacher on pilot project one

Focused on documenting the co-development and delivery of the pilot project, including teachers’ and pupils’ understanding. The methods to do this were influenced by what was feasible in terms of pupil ability, teacher capacity and my abilities. All methods were geared towards benefitting the pupils’ understanding of the pilot project; see Table 3 (3)

↓

Clarified feasible research objectives through considering the strengths of the research and key themes emerging from the research; see Table 3 (4)

↓

Pilot in second school

I was keen to focus more on in-depth evaluation working with the model we developed, for example, encouraging the pupils to engage with evaluating the extent we were engaging with the thinking modes and focusing on reflective writing. Reference to model refers to the timeline and key aspects of the project such as pupil led learning discussed with teacher.

↓

The methods and questions for evaluation, as outlined in Table 3 (4), were shaped by teacher and class profile, despite the above questions acting as a guide to the research.

↓

General Discussion and Conclusion (chapter 7)

Rather than in-depth evaluation the second pilot project enabled comparison between how the different schools/ teachers worked with the theoretical underpinnings and issues related to pedagogy. Referred to the concepts of design and utopianism and initial thinking modes to present and discuss the different outcomes of the pilot projects in terms of policy and practice.

Reflected on the resulting methodology and the lessons learnt relevant to action research in a postgraduate setting.

Figure 3 (1): Influences on, and direction of changes, through the research process Purpose

Understanding of approaches to EfS

Establish interest in pilot project

Influence on methodology

Need for clarity in research remit and my position as a researcher. Further engagement and commitment to action research. Appreciated potential for other direction not driven by action research: articulated in text

Additional outcome

Engagement with policy context to discuss pilot project in terms of current educational reforms

Table 3(1): The evolving research questions as a response to practice

Questions pre pilot project one

Reflections in light of practice Reframed questions for pilot project two

1) How does this conceptual framework (see course descriptor presented in section 4.7) currently fit into the curriculum?

2) Could this pilot project deliver the intended aims and objectives?

3) In what way would pupils and teachers develop this pilot project/ aspects of the education or wider system to deliver the desired aims and objectives?

The research was primarily driven by a desire to create an inspiring model. This question was first proposed with the expectation of more systematic discussion. Although this question remained influential the focus was too broad. The teacher, having piloted the project and discussed EfS with me, was able to reflect on how other initiatives compared with the pilot project. The pupils were asked if and how the pilot project differed to what was being delivered in school. However the depth of discussion was limited by other priorities in delivering the pilot project.

As a question to frame the research this question was better posed as how do we evaluate a strategy for EfS? The aims and objectives as outlined in the course descriptor were not systematically and explicitly discussed. In place of these, themes emerging from the pilot projects were discussed on the back of discussions with pupils and an eagerness to frame the evaluation in a language informed by the experience of the classroom.

This question remained key but was re-framed to emphasis the characteristics of the pilot project and research. The main focus was on the pilot project rather than the wider system due to time constraints. The commentary on the wider education system was enhanced through comparing the different approaches in the two schools and identifying themes that influenced the development and delivery of the pilot projects.

1) What are the resulting insights and recommendations for the school curriculum emerging from this research in terms of:

a) The status of EfS in the curriculum (including a focus on pupil engagement, pupil led learning, and pupil reflection) b) Teacher engagement

c) Support for resources

2) What are the resulting insights and recommendations for the school curriculum emerging from this research in terms of the evaluation strategy i.e.how do we evaluate EfS?

3) What form does this pilot project take (including a timeline, understanding of pilot project from different perspectives, resources used for the pilot and plans that did not happen)?

Table 3(1): Continued

Questions pre pilot project one

Reflections in light of practice Reframed questions for pilot project two 4) How might we conceptualise/ theorise ‘design thinking’ as fundamental to education in the 21st century?

As I didn’t discuss design thinking with the teacher in any depth but developed an interest in how the project related to initial aspirations driven by my understanding of action

research, I decided a change in emphasis was appropriate. I was not naturally inclined to discuss design thinking when in the

classroom, influenced in part by time and the desire to prioritise other aspects that would aid in the delivery and understanding of the project.

4) What are the lessons learnt relevant to AR in an educational (secondary school) context?

The following reflects on the scoping stage as influencing my research focus and approach, in keeping with the approach to the write up, or style, considered appropriate to present this thesis.

The first year constituted a time in which I grappled with the research remit, referred to in retrospect as ‘the scoping stage’. It is easy in academia, as I experienced in my first year, to become sheltered in an ‘ivory tower’. Thus, I would like to acknowledge the opportunities and contacts that were influential during the scoping stage in the articulation of research questions, remit and methodology. The contacts, as detailed in Table 3 (2), increased my understanding of the curriculum and current EfS initiatives; increased my confidence to work with teachers and a wide range of pupils; and improved my ability to form ‘realistic expectations’ when writing a proposal to link theory and practice. Through discussing EfS with those involved with practice very different attitudes and understanding of policy and EfS were highlighted, as presented in 6.1.3.

Table 3 (2): Influential experiences during the scoping stage

Contact Experience

Scottish Outdoor Education Centre Volunteered at an Outdoor Centre for a summer:

Co-ran outdoor and activity sessions with a range of pupils.

Eco-Schools training Completed the eco-school assessment training qualification and attended a school assessment.

Visits to secondary schools Visited several open days at secondary schools showing examples of Education for Sustainability.

Conversations with teachers Spoke to secondary school teachers from different subjects on how they see their subject contributing to EfS; their views on the ‘strength model approach to EfS’ and their feedback on my proposed conceptual framework.

Work with prominent NGO Worked with a prominent NGO. My role involved working closely with secondary schools and delivering sessions for pupils relevant to the concept of EfS endorsed in this research.

My brother at secondary school Held conversations with my brother at secondary school and his friends on school, EfS, and my proposed conceptual framework.

During the scoping stage, finding a school became my central concern and challenge. An initial letter was sent to schools in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Dumfries and Galloway establishing interest in participating in my research, including a request to hold semi structured interviews with teachers based around the following themes: the teachers’ worldview; the recent curriculum reform, Curriculum for Excellence; the UN Decade for Education for Sustainability; professional identity; and the proposed pilot project, see overview of initial course descriptor as a template for the conversation in section 6.1.2. The themes reflected a desire to understand the meaning and status of EfS in the Scottish secondary school curriculum, including teachers’ attitudes and understanding of EfS and what was currently being delivered related to EfS; and to have an opportunity to discuss my understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of EfS as addressed in the following chapter. The basis for selecting the geographical regions was on the grounds of accessibility as I relied on public transport. During the scoping year, several conversations with teachers were held and three conversations recorded. Additional conversations were not recorded as informality supported the role of the conversations with teachers as an important scoping exercise to better understand the field, including improving my ability to communicate with those involved in the secondary school curriculum. The recorded conversations are returned to in chapter six, Preparation, Piloting and Evaluating. Reference to the conversations

in this chapter highlights their influence on the methodology: resulting in a commitment to ‘action research’ and as such influencing my research questions.

These conversations provoked thought about the need for clarity in my research remit and my position as a researcher. In order to pilot the conceptual framework it was necessary to work in partnership with the teacher, i.e. to be open and honest with each other, impossible to do without stipulating your own worldview. However, in order to discuss teachers’ views on EfS I was keen to appear non-judgemental. In one interview I realised that the teacher did not share my concerns, or rather her view of ‘sustainable development’ was very different to my own. An answer that EfS was adequate would therefore not mean much without a discussion over the role and understanding of education and EfS. During another ‘interview’ I was caught between bolstering my credibility by explaining what I was doing and encouraging the teacher to speak her mind. Narrowing down the questions whilst ensuring that the discussion was as holistic as necessary was required. However, I was not able to discuss convincingly the conceptual framework without having piloted it. I needed to have self- confidence that I understood my proposed strategy and it was worthy of PhD research, being very aware of the threat of ‘unbecoming’ a researcher (Archer, 2008).

During the scoping stage I contacted prominent non-governmental organisations (NGOs) committed to EfS to discuss the concept of EfS they sought to facilitate in the school curriculum; and to ask whether or not they knew of contacts within the secondary school sector they felt would be interested in discussing EfS and my conceptual framework, potentially for a pilot project. A couple of prominent NGOs in the field of EfS suggested that what I was proposing ‘already exists’, but were not able to supply evidence. A prominent spokesperson in the area of EfS working for a large NGO conceptualised the ‘main issues’, in email correspondence, as the practicalities of ‘running these courses. For example where does it fit in the timetable? Which subject teacher takes responsibility for this? [and] which areas of the curriculum/national priorities does it address?’. I was advised to ‘examine several existing courses of this nature, investigate how the schools have dealt with these practical issues, explore what motivated them to take this approach, what benefits they feel this approach delivers and explore the reasons that these approaches are not more widely adopted by other schools’. The scoping research demonstrated that whilst diverse work in developing EfS in the classroom has been undertaken, such initiatives

frequently did not result in academic or non-academic publications and the experiences are thus not easily accessible to others.

During the scoping stage there were research opportunities to examine teachers’ approaches to EfS through focusing on a discussion about the conceptual framework. Based on the conceptual framework I could have focused on, for example, the challenges and opportunities of implementation; or their expectations of pupils’ engagement and what sort of future would be predicted; or the way in which it differed from EfS initiatives currently running at school. As detailed at the start of this chapter, I was committed to the ethos of action research and immersing myself in both theory and practice through the pilot projects rather than conducting an investigation by, for example, working with multiple schools, imposing a model on existing curriculum, or project development without a pilot project. Other themes that were raised during the scoping conversations are returned to in section 6.1.3 including: outside organisations involved with EfS and teacher collaboration; the value of eco-schools; divergent views about the CfE; the eco-literacy of teachers; the lack of resources for EfS appropriate for secondary school teachers; HMIe reporting; the role of teachers and values; hope versus despair in delivering EfS; and the Island project. Although any of these themes may have been appropriate for PhD study, and may have constituted a more clearly defined and ‘comfortable’ research line of inquiry, the utility was not satisfactory. I was determined my PhD/knowledge production would be more than just critique and explanation.