“Human behaviour, thoughts and feelings are partly determined by their context. If you want to understand people in real life you have to study them in their context and the way they operate” (Gillham, 2000, p. 11). A case study methodology is particularly appropriate to study human behaviour in the real world ‘as it happens’ (Stake, 1995). It is the preferred methodology in situations where it is very difficult to separate the phenomenon under investigation from the surrounding influences (Yin, 2003). A distinguishing feature of case study methodology is the belief that human systems develop a characteristic wholeness or integrity, and are not simply a loose collection of traits that can be investigated without concern for the relationship between them (Sturman, 1999).
The nature of case study in education has been debated in the research community for more that 30 years. Historically, case study has its roots in the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, history, psychology, law and medicine. Perhaps because of this broad base, there seems to be little agreement about what case study is. Stake (1995) recognised the complexity of defining case study, arguing that: “We cannot make precise definitions of cases or case studies because practices already exist for case study in many disciplines” (p. 2). At the simplest level, case study has been characterised as “a sort of catch-all category for research that is not a survey or an experiment and is not statistical in nature” (Merriam, 1998, pp. 18 – 19).
A number of key educational researchers have contributed to debate over definitions of case study research in education. Robert Yin (2003), one of the leading proponents of case study research in the United States, defines it as “an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p. 13). Anchored in real life, case studies can give a rich holistic account of a phenomenon. It is this holistic view of the interrelationship of contributing variables that requires an in-depth study from within the educational environment, as opposed to the contrived contexts of experiments or survey. “Case studies offer a means of investigating complex social units consisting of multiple variables of potential importance in
66 understanding the phenomenon” (Merriam, 1998, p. 41). Cohen, Manion, and, Morrison (2000) expanded the discussion, taking the position that:
Unlike the experimenter who manipulates variables to determine their causal significance or the surveyor who asks standardised questions of large, representative samples of individuals, the case study researcher typically observes the characteristics of an individual unit—a child, a clique, a class, a school or a community. The purpose of such observation is to probe deeply and to analyse intensively the multifarious phenomena that constitutes the life cycle of the unit with a view to establishing generalisations about the wider population to which that unit belongs. (p. 185)
The strength of case study research is that it is conducted ‘in situ’ rather than in a laboratory, and, as such, it can provide a rich description of the research problem from within the surrounding context. Contexts are unique and dynamic; therefore case studies investigate the complex dynamic and unfolding interactions of events and people in a unique setting (Cohen et al., 2000). This is especially true in educational settings such as the one in the current research, where the interplay between the school, the classroom environment, the teachers, the students, the curriculum, and assessment forms a complex web.
Within an educational environment, Bassey (1999) describes case studies as:
[A]n empirical enquiry which is: conducted within a localised boundary of space and time (i.e. a singularity); into interesting aspects of an educational activity, or programme or institution, or system; mainly in its natural context and within an ethic of respect for persons; in such a way that sufficient data are collected for the researcher to be able to explore significant features of the case, to create plausible interpretations of what is found, to test for the trustworthiness of these interpretations, to relate the argument or story to any relevant research in the literature, to convey convincingly to an audience this argument or story. (p. 58)
Case studies are distinguished more by the singularities they investigate than by the methods they employ (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995). Case studies rely on triangulating multiple sources of data, and, although qualitative methods form the bulk of data generating techniques, the use of quantitative methods is not precluded. The data generating methods used are informed by the prior development of theoretical propositions (Yin, 2003).
67 The current research is informed by the theoretical framework developed by Sadler (1989). Key to this framework is the notion that assessment information is only formative if students use it to positively impact on their own learning. Therefore, students’ perceptions of the formative feedback they receive, and their use of this feedback, is central to this project. Accordingly, this research used data generation methods designed to capture and contextualise the student voice. These methods are discussed in more detail in section 3.7
3.3.1 Categories of case studies
A number of researchers have developed terminology distinguishing various categorisations of case study methodologies. Yin (1993) identified three sub- categories of case studies in terms of their outcomes. He defined these as descriptive, explanatory and exploratory case studies.
Descriptive case studies present “a complete description of a phenomenon within its context” (Yin, 1993, p. 5), often via narrative accounts. This is similar to Bassey’s (1999) ‘story-telling and picture-drawing’ categorisation, and consistent with Stake’s (1995) ‘intrinsic’ case studies. In a descriptive case study, the researcher looks into a particular situation for its own sake, irrespective of outside concerns. They are interested in it, not because by studying it we learn about other cases or about some general issue or problems, but because we need to learn about that particular case. In other words we have an intrinsic interest in the case.
The second of Yin’s (1993) categories, explanatory case studies, “present data on cause effect relationships—explaining which causes produced which effects” (p. 5). Bassey (1999) described this category as ‘theory-testing’, designed to gather evidence to confirm, or refute, accepted theory. It is Yin’s (1993) exploratory case study that is most relevant to the current research. An exploratory case study is designed to investigate one or more particular situations in order to try to understand an outside concern. The case is chosen because it is thought to be typical of something more general and we may gain insight into the overriding question by studying the particular case. The focus is on the issue rather than the case and the researcher will start and end with the issues dominant. In this regard the case study is ‘instrumental’
68 (Stake, 1995) to accomplish something other than an understanding of the particular case. This paradigm seeks to understand, describe and explain what is happening within a particular case without making value judgements or trying to induce change.
Often exploratory case studies are undertaken because there is a lack of theory, or existing theories fail to adequately explain a phenomenon (Yin, 2003). In this regard, exploratory case studies ‘seek’ information with the aim of formulating theory, and are consistent with Bassey’s (1999) ‘theory-seeking’ case study. From an interpretivist perspective, theory is something researchers create, rather than something that is there and established. This does not necessarily mean that case study research is entered into without some general theoretical stance, but this stance is merely a starting point. The evidence looked for is dictated initially by the study’s broad aims, but increasingly the study is directed by the successively revised theories or explanations of what has been found. The current research was informed initially by the broad base of literature surrounding formative assessment, and, in particular, Sadler’s (1989) theory of formative assessment. This general theoretical stance informed the data generating phase of the pilot project, and the subsequent main project. During early data generation, it emerged that students’ development of formative assessment practices appeared to be socially situated. Accordingly a sociocultural perspective incorporating communities of practice was used to inform later data generating phases. This resulted in a closer examination of the social interactions that help students develop knowledge of how to use assessment information formatively.
This exploratory perspective to case study methodology is consistent with Nachmias and Nachmias’s (1992) concept of ‘research before theory’, where research may pose new problems for theory, require theoretical innovation, refine existing theories, or serve to vary past theoretical assumptions. Exploratory case studies are often used as pilot studies to subsequent studies, by defining questions and hypotheses that may be tested using subsequent case studies, or alternate methodologies such as large scale surveys or experiments. However, the use of case studies as a preliminary to other studies does not reduce the legitimacy of case studies as a significant research method in its own right (Cohen et al., 2000).
69