Construcción de Escalas

To conduct this research in an ethical manner that respected the rights, well-being, and dignity of participants, care was taken to identify and address ethical issues inherent within this study. A detailed ethics application was submitted to the Massey University Human Ethics Committee: Southern B and approval was granted (application 09/57). After feedback from the pilot study group, further amendments were sought and subsequently approved. The following two subsections discuss in greater detail how specific ethical issues were addressed in this study.

4.2.1. Voluntary and Informed Consent

The first stage of the informed consent process involved gaining written permission from the principals and the boards of trustees12 of the two secondary schools selected for the study (see Appendices A1, A2, and A3 for the letter, information sheet and consent form). The second stage of the consent process involved gaining the verbal approval of the heads of the English department of each school to meet with Year 12 English teachers of A Stream English classes. The third stage involved gaining Year 12 English teachers’ approval to access their English classes in order to speak to potential participants (see Appendices A4 and A5 for the information sheet and consent form).

Each of the information sheets supplied to the principals, boards of trustees, and the teachers explained the purpose, duration, scope and potential benefits of the study; how voluntary participation and informed consent would be sought; what was required of participants, teachers, and the school; the rights of the participants and the school; and contact details if additional clarification was needed.

The fourth stage of the informed consent process involved speaking to Year 12 students about the study, giving them an opportunity to ask questions, and providing them with information sheets (see Appendix A6). These sheets explained the purpose of the research, what was expected of them as participants, their rights, and contact details if additional clarification was needed. Potential participants were encouraged to show the information sheet to their parents and to discuss their decision to participate with their parents. They were also given five days in which to return their written consent forms. One consent form (Appendix A7) also included a request for

participants’ contact details (postal and email addresses, and phone numbers) in order to send out an initial letter, contact students about meeting arrangements if needed, follow up questionnaire completion if students were absent, and to inform participants of the research findings. In 15 cases where students were less than 16 years of age, parental consent was also sought (see Appendix A8).

Participants’ voluntary and informed consent was also required by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) before NZQA would release participants’ levels 1 and 2

12_{“All of New Zealand's state and state}

-integrated schools have a board of trustees. The board of trustees is the Crown entity responsible for the governance and the control of the

management of the school. The board is the employer of all staff in the school, is responsible for setting the school's strategic direction in consultation with parents, staff and students, and

ensuring that its school provides a safe environment and quality education for all its students”

English results to me (see Appendix A9). Students were made aware of what they were consenting to and why these results were needed in the information sheet provided. I was also required to sign an NZQA ethical release of data consent form (see Appendix A10).

Potential participants were informed that participation was voluntary. In a letter

thanking students for volunteering and detailing organisational matters associated with the study, volunteers were reminded that they could withdraw at any point without needing to explain, and given an assurance they would not be pressured to continue (see Appendix A11). With regards to the issue of ongoing consent in longitudinal research (T. Miller & Bell, 2002), it was assumed that participants’ ongoing consent was freely given when students chose to complete questionnaires during their lunch break, or to complete these at home in their own time over the duration of the study.

Voluntary and informed consent was also sought for Phase Two of this study. Of the 107 participants who completed all 11 questionnaires, 16 students were selected for interview. Each was sent a detailed information sheet and consent form (see

Appendices A12 and A13). Potential interviewees had the opportunity to ask questions, time to consider whether they wished to be involved, and were informed that

participation was voluntary.

4.2.2. Privacy and Confidentiality

Throughout this research, efforts were made to respect participants’ rights to privacy, and confidentiality. In relation to privacy, participants were informed through the information sheets that they had the right to decline to answer any questions they did not wish to answer when completing questionnaires or being interviewed. Interviewees were reminded of this right just prior to their interview. They were also given the

opportunity to delete information they did not want included when reviewing their transcripts. Each interviewee signed a consent form releasing this data once they had checked their transcript (see Appendix A14).

Confidentiality issues were addressed as described in the information sheets for Phase One and Phase Two of this study (see Appendices A6 and A12). Specifically, potential participants were assured that I would be the only person to have access to data that contained information from which they could be identified, and that their identity would not be revealed when reporting the findings of this study. A statement to this effect was

also placed at the beginning of each questionnaire, except for one, which was an oversight on my part.

The participants’ identity and contact details were not shared with others, although participants were aware of the identity of other participants from their school, as they were often in the same room filling out questionnaires. English teachers and senior management were not informed as to who had elected to participate. Nor were they informed about the identity of the other school from which participants had been drawn. Participants’ contact details, their questionnaires, and their transcribed interviews were securely stored and could only be accessed by me. The transcriber signed a

confidentiality form prior to transcribing any interview data and was required to delete the electronic files once the transcription work was completed (see Appendix A15).

When reporting the findings from this study, the participants’ and the schools’ identities were hidden. A coding system was used when quoting participants’ open-ended questionnaire responses, while pseudonyms were used when referring to interviewees and their interview data. Quantitative data were aggregated so no individuals could be identified. Having a large number of participants drawn from two different schools out of ten different English classes also significantly lessened the risk of individual

participants being identified. Participants were also specifically asked not to identify teachers by name in their questionnaires or interview comments. Lastly, in an effort to hide the identities of the two schools, the schools were described in very general terms.