The research was conducted within one Decile 8 New Zealand Intermediate School2 between February – October, 2010. Students were organised in Year Seven/Eight composite classes. Classes within the school were organised within three ‘houses’ or learning teams of around six classes in each. The school had been involved in professional development initiatives focused on developing ‘rich, real and relevant’ curricula and pedagogical approaches for the young adolescent age group prior to the research. They had also acted as the lead school in a Ministry of Education Extending High Standards Across Schools (EHSAS) project that funded six schools to collaborate around developing inquiry learning pedagogy school-wide.
I employed opportunity sampling (Cohen et al., 2007) to select the research school, participating teachers, their classes and the SRG. I invited the Principal of the school informally to participate in the research. I followed up this informal invitation with a formal School Information Letter to the Principal as Board of Trustees representative. The principal agreed that the school would participate on the basis that six teachers were willing to participate as an addition to their
professional work load.
4.10.1 Recruiting participating class and comparison class teachers
To recruit participating class and comparison class teachers I presented the research at a staff meeting in February 2010. At this meeting I outlined the research questions, aims, design, criteria for participation and anticipated
2 New Zealand schools are assigned a decile rating that describes the extent to which they draw students from low socio-economic communities. A decile rating of 1 indicates a school is one of 10% with the highest proportion of students drawn from the lowest socio-economic communities. A decile rating of 10 indicates a school is one of 10% that have the lowest proportion of students drawn from low socio-economic communities. A School’s decile rating is devised from national census data and updated every five years (Ministry of Education).
professional commitment requirements of the research to all staff. I was looking to recruit fully registered teachers working preferably within the same learning team. I preferred to work with teachers in the same learning team to generate a critical mass within the team where teachers could collaborate easily and support each other within the research.
I distributed a research information pack related to all teachers that included an Information Sheet and Teacher Consent Form. I asked teachers to indicate their willingness to participate to me either in person, via email or via telephone within a week following the staff meeting. Six teachers agreed to participate in the research – three as participating classes for the duration of the research and three as comparison classes for the NZCER Me and My School student engagement survey at the beginning and end of the research. The six teachers together
constituted one of the school’s three learning teams. I met with the learning team during a team meeting and re-stated the aims and processes of the research again in more detail, obtained informed consent, and established the organisation for recruiting participating and comparison students from their classes.
Table 1 presents details of the three participating teachers: their gender, years teaching, relevant responsibilities and experience and their espoused reasons for participating in the research.
Table 1 Participating Teacher Details Teachers Gender Years
teaching
Responsibilities & Experience
Reasons for Participating
Betty Female 6 Class teacher Investigate her students’ perceptions of good teaching as reflective professional opportunity
Chicken Female 15 Team Leader Prior student voice professional development
Learn more about being an effective teacher from her students
Lincoln Male 8 Digital class teacher
Lead teacher for e- learning
Utilise technology in as a means to engage and enhance student learning. Enact students as teachers philosophy
4.10.2 Recruiting participating and comparison class students
This section describes the processes I used to recruit participating and comparison class students to gain their educated consent to participate in the research. I presented the focus, questions and activities of the research to the students in each of the three participating and three comparison classes. For students in the
participating teachers’ classes I prepared a short animation that communicated the focus and intent of the research, and what participation in the research would entail (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Animated Introduction to the Research. Screen shots
I distributed a Student Information Sheet during the session for students to refer to as I talked. The Information Sheet included a question and answer section (David et al., 2001) to ensure that information essential to the research was accessible to a broad range of readers. I also mailed a Student Information Pack to all students and their parents/caregivers in the participating and comparison classes that included a:
Parental Information Sheet; and Consent Form
The comparison class Information Pack focused on gaining consent to take part in the NZCER Me and My School student engagement survey in Action Cycle’s One and Three of the research. The participating class Information Pack was more extensive and focused on the collaborative action research activities.
The Information Packs were mailed home to ensure that all parents received information about the research and to expedite the consent process. Class teachers received and collated completed student and parental consent forms and
distributed additional Information packs to students who lost these or whose parents/caregivers did not receive packs sent via the post.
4.10.3 Recruiting the student research group
To recruit the student research group (SRG) of 12 students from within the three participating classes, originally I organised an open lunchtime meeting for
interested students to attend. I had described the purpose, focus and activities that the SRG would be involved in throughout the research during the initial
introduction of the research to the participating class students. I produced 60 SRG Information Packs based on initial indications from students as to who might be interested to join the group.
In practice the lunchtime meeting clashed with the students’ existing extra- curricular commitments. Only two students attended and registered their interest for participating in the SRG through the lunch meeting forum. I repeated the lunch session again at a different time with similar results. I consulted with the participating teachers and we decided that the teachers would invite four students in each of their classes who had indicated informally they would be interested to participate. The teachers were asked to invite a mix of students on criteria of gender, class level, and ethnicity. I also asked the teachers to approach students who varied in perceived engagement with school and capability to articulate their perspectives.
In practice some of the students approached by the class teachers declined to participate because they perceived the research would involve ‘more work’. This included a number of Maori students approached in order to ensure ethnic
were interested to participate initially, and those who consented after being approached by their teachers.
Twelve students agreed to participate in the research. Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of the group.
Table 2 Student Research Group Demographic Characteristics Criteria Gender Chicken’s
Class
Betty’s Class Lincoln’s Class
Total
Year Group Year
7 Year 8 Year 7 Year 8 Year 7 Year 8 Gender Male 1 1 1 1 4 Female 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 Ethnicity NZ European 3 2 2 2 2 11 Maori 1 1 2
Table 2 shows that four of the SRG were male and eight were female. Eleven of the group identified as New Zealand European ethnicity and two identified as Maori. One student identified as both Maori and New Zealand European. Five of the SRG group were Year 7 students and seven of the group were Year 8 students.
Once the SRG students were selected, I met with them to re-state the aims, focus and questions of the research and to introduce them to the visual research methods and photo assignment. I used a visual chart to highlight the main information of the session that students could refer to throughout the meeting, reviewed
information students had already been given and answered the students’ questions about the implications of participating in the research. I brought along two digital cameras that the students used to explore the process of auto-photography.
I distributed the SRG Information Pack to students in this meeting also. The Information pack contained a:
SRG Student Information Sheet and Consent Form; SRG Parental Information Sheet and Consent Form; and Demographic Questionnaire.
I presented information about the research in the information and consent forms in a question and answer format for reasons outlined in 4.10.2. The students
returned their consent forms to their class teachers and these were passed on to me for collation and storage.
The SRG students selected pseudonyms for the research to protect their identity and anonymise their contributions. Table 3 outlines their pseudonyms, an abbreviation of these that I use to associate data examples with them throughout the research account, and their classroom.
Table 3 Student Research Group Pseudonyms and Abbreviations
Class Teacher Pseudonym Abbreviation
Betty Timmy Star
Sandy Dee Tim Bob Jim Bubbles TS SD TBJ BB Chicken Flippinschnip Short Stuff Pocket Rockit Honey Bunny FN SS PR HB Lincoln Lulabelle Asheley Green Hityu Captain Underpants LL AG HT CU