A research design is a logical plan for getting from here to there, where ‘here’ is the initial set of questions, and ‘there’ is reached with the conclusions or answers to these questions (Yin, 2009). The creation and maintaining of clear procedures that support future replication is acknowledged as important, particularly as it may be valuable that future investigations are carried out to account for differences in gender, socio-
economic status, ethnicity or other variables, to those found in the subjects in this sample. This next section sets out the study aims, units of analysis and data gathering tools. Photo elicitation as a data gathering technique is described and the decision to include this is explained.
3.2.1 Research Aims
The aims of this study were to describe the nature of the differences demonstrated by gifted visual-spatial learners and to describe how these differences affect their
experiences and in particular their learning, within a New Zealand context. A
secondary objective was to ascertain the extent to which gifted visual-spatial learners were recognised, valued and empowered to develop their exceptional abilities through equitable access to differentiated provision (Ministry of Education, 2012). It was intended to determine how well the adults in their lives understand the potential these students have and how much appreciation there is of their need for a differentiated curriculum.
3.2.2 Units of Analysis
Three students who had been identified as having a gifted visual-spatial learner profile following the administration of a cognitive assessment process by a specialist assessor were sought. The decision to examine three cases acknowledged the reality that within any grouping, members will display diverse characteristics such that while common features will determine group membership, individuals will also differ from each other in various ways. By comparing three cases, it was anticipated that both commonalities and differences would be identified and overly prescriptive description to some extent avoided. Recruitment of participants from the pool of students who
had consulted professionals and undertaken standardised testing also enabled the collection and analysis of the results of this testing as a data source.
The first step in the recruitment process involved approaching two professionals who are each well recognized within the gifted education community as having expertise in the area of assessing gifted children. After discussing the intended study with me and giving their informed consent to participate, they each passed on requests to the parents of students they had assessed that fitted the criteria for participation, to meet with me to discuss participation (see Appendix A). Criteria included that the students were aged between 8 and 14 years of age and that the cognitive assessment profile resulting from testing carried out by the assessor indicated a gifted visual-spatial processing style. Upon reviewing assessments from the previous 12 months and ruling out any who lived too far away or were outside of the required age range, the first assessor identified four potential candidates. The second assessor supplied me with a list of six possible candidates. On request, each prioritised their list to reflect the degree of visual-spatial ability as determined by their assessment. I contacted participants from the top of each list as positive responses were received back from them, indicating interest in finding out more about the study. In this way my selection of participants remained a more objective process that relied on outside professional opinion and avoided any bias on my part.
An initial meeting with the parents and their child was then arranged, to answer any questions they had about participation. After receiving their informed consent, a meeting with the principal of the student’s school was arranged to discuss the study and obtain their informed consent to participate. Upon receipt of their agreement, a similar approach was made to the student’s teacher, and the informed consent process was again followed. In all cases, the relevant information sheet and consent forms (see Appendix B) were left for consideration and eventual return by post.
3.2.3 Data Gathering Tools
The case study approach demands a wide array of information be gathered in order to illustrate the case from multiple perspectives and to thereby gain an in-depth picture of it (Creswell, 2007). Data gathering tools used in this study involved individual
interviews with the students, their parents and their teachers. An interview was carried out with the assessor who had completed the assessment process and
information provided in the cognitive assessment report completed by them was also drawn upon. This was supplemented by information from reports and results of standardised testing completed at school, from student work samples, and by observations of the student in different settings.
The initial data gathering approach was to conduct a semi-structured one on one interview with each student, as well as with their parents, their teachers and with the assessor who had completed a cognitive assessment with them. The information gained in this way was used to provide viewpoints of the same issues from different perspectives. Therefore similar questions based around identified concepts were asked of each participant, to elicit a range of views that were used to build up a thick
description. However, room was deliberately left free within each interview for the unique experiences that individuals may have to tell about (Stake, 1995).
The need to collect comprehensive data about the individual experiences of each participant pointed to interviewing being the best fit method for data collection. It was considered that research questions around how the gifted visual-spatial learner experiences learning, what participants know and feel about the students’ learning differences and how differences are responded to would be best answered through direct conversation. A semi-structured interview format, where questions are partly pre-planned but flexibility to follow fruitful tangents is retained, was therefore chosen. Advantages of using semi-structured interviews as a data collection method include that much greater depth of detailed information can be attained. A more informal conversational approach that creates a relaxed atmosphere can help participants to feel comfortable with sharing experiences. On the other hand, the time required to plan, undertake, transcribe and analyse interviews is noted to be a shortcoming of
interviewing as a data collection method. Further disadvantages include that not having a totally identical set of questions limits the extent to which the study can be replicated. Also, the risk of interviewer bias increases with more freedom to add spontaneous or leading questions (Woods, n.d.).
3.2.4 Photo-Elicitation Interview
In recent research on a similar ‘How do we learn?’ theme, Phelps, Nhung, Graham and Greeves (2012) chose to interview Vietnamese children using photo and drawing- elicitation interview methods as they recognised that doing so would moderate some of the problematic aspects of more traditional style interviews. Their rationale is equally valid for the visual-spatial learners within my study. Firstly, they note a reduction in reliance on verbal linguistic communication skills. Also, there is room for a style of dialogue that is more sympathetic to children’s natural ways of
exchanging ideas, as opposed to the ‘question-and-answer’ format of more formal discourse. In this way, the power ratio implicit in an adult-child interview situation can give the impression of being more balanced, leading to positive and more productive relationships (Epstein, Stevens, McKeever and Baruchel, 2006). Further to this, participants are empowered by being given choice over what to photograph, enabling them to capture the essence of what is important to them (Einarsdottir, 2007). This lessens the danger that ideas and values are imposed upon them and their own perspectives are missed. Phelps et al. (2012) also note from their experiences of this approach that the method of utilising photos within interviews “provides a
concrete product and creates a ‘show and tell’ dynamic that can make interviews more fun and less like a test in school (p. 7)”.
Luttrell and Chalfen (2010) found the process of participatory media to be seldom defined, but that it “often brings together an unfamiliar ‘outside’ person and an individual or group of ‘inside’ people who use cameras (still and video) to jointly explore a topic of shared concern” (p. 197). Harper (2002) defined photo-elicitation as simply “inserting a photograph into a research interview” (pg 13), however stated that the impact of this addition is quite profound, based upon the way that the human brain processes visual information separately to verbal information. Harper (p. 13) tells that
the parts of the brain that process visual information are evolutionarily older than the parts that process verbal information. Thus images evoke deeper elements of human consciousness that (sic) do words; exchanges based on words alone utilize less of the brain’s capacity than do exchanges in which the brain is processing images as well as words.
This is consistent with written accounts of VSLs’ preferred processing mechanism (Baddeley, 2003) pointing to this method as being one that will evoke optimum information-sharing.
Loizos (2000) describes advantages to photo elicitation as being “restricted but powerful records of real-world, real-time actions and events” (p. 93). He also credits the method with providing concrete visual data that can provide positive support towards research questions that seek to illuminate complex, theoretical and/or abstract issues. Further, he places the visual element involved as being in keeping with the contemporary influences of today’s communication media that have become such an integral part of our social, political and economic life.
Less favourable aspects of “the growing practice of ‘giving kids cameras’” (p. 197) were highlighted by Luttrell and Chalfen (2010) including a lack of consensus from researchers who had utilised participatory visual methods in their work over what purposes the photographs were intended to fulfil. Other concerns were that they may influence responses, particularly if captioned or accompanied by other text. They also questioned the assumption that participatory visual research ‘gives voice’ to
marginalised, less powerful people. Loizos wrote that visual records are limited in that they are only two dimensional representations of a three dimensional world and that therefore “they are inevitably secondary, derived, reduced-scale simplifications of the realities that gave birth to them” (Loizos, 2000 p. 94).
The decision to include this technique was based on its good fit with the
characteristics of the participants. It was hoped the children would feel empowered through participating and making choices over what to photograph. Discussion around the photographs was considered useful in providing a scaffold for lower verbal ability that was anticipated as a possible feature. This discussion provided a context for informal dialogue that used a concrete visual product linked to personally