Part 2 constitutes the main body of this research project, which, as we have seen, consists of two case studies. Case study is, according to Stake, ‘the study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to
have previously explained my predilection for case study but there are several specific reasons why I saw it as my most suitable methodology.
1) Teacher as Researcher
The research of education, as Lawrence Stenhouse claimed, is ‘applied’ research rather than a ‘pure’ inquiry, since it aims at ‘the support of educational acts’ (1980: p.75). It serves the purpose of improving
educational practice through providing better understandings, and it also requires that the research must be conducted within educational settings. From this viewpoint, he saw teachers as the ideal researchers for they can act as practitioners of both education and educational research, and
advocated that case study was an approach that enabled teachers to play to their strengths. My research project was clearly in the area of ‘applied’
research and aimed to serve a specific educational purpose. Although not an experienced teacher myself, I conducted the drama teaching all by myself and collected data through different methods as a researcher during the process of field work. The whole process allowed me to be ‘integrally involved in the case’ (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995, p. 317).
2) The Nature of Drama
Drama as pedagogy, according to O’Toole, ‘is by its very nature a negotiated group art form and is therefore a non-reproducible experience’ (2006: p.46). In other words, based upon group interactions, students in the workshops would build up a specific set of relationships in the context of the drama exercises. Therefore, O’Toole suggests that the whole process should be closely studied, and suggests that case study provides the chance for
researchers to be‘ deeply involved in the structure, processes and outcomes of the project’ (2006: p.46).
3) Real Life Experience and Literary Community
The research project focused on making literature matter to common readers, so I used the Leavisite tradition (1960) and reception theory to frame my teaching principles. Both frames advocate an intimate relationship between reader and literary text, therefore stressing the richness of literary
understanding, as well as the variety of interpretations that emanate from different readers. Case studies allow researchers to look at the phenomenon ‘in its real-life context’, and ‘investigate and report the complex dynamic and unfolding interactions of events, human relationships and other factors in a unique instance’ (Cohen, Morrison and Manion, 2007: p.254). As to this research, the case study approach allowed me to catch the most valuable data - students’ lived experiences of, thoughts about, and feelings for the literary texts we were exploring through drama.
4.3.2.2 Methods
Participant-observation
Wilkinson and Birmingham have suggested that ‘a particularly effective way to study groups in depth is to become part of them, immerse yourself in them, go where they go as they go there, and watch what they do as they do it’ (2003: p.119). As to this research, I was the teacher observer who conducted the programme, took part in the events of the research, and observed the occurrences taking place in the field.
LeCompte and Preissle (1993) classify participation in research into four degrees – complete participant, participant as observer, observer as
participant and complete observer, and their interactions with the group are in descending order. I have to admit that during the research process, I found it was hard to observe students’ responses whilst teaching and my
observations could not avoid a certain amount of subjectivity. However, the nature of drama pedagogy allowed me to conduct some more detached observations in class. When students worked on certain drama exercises, especially group work, I could walk around the classroom, get very close to them, listen to their discussions, watch their interactions, and take field notes.
Field notes
There are a number of ways to collect data through structured observation, which, however, could not be applied in my research. Even though I could make a detailed and systematic observation schedule in advance, the
observation in practice still tended to be unstructured, because I had to focus much of my attention on teaching and acting, and due to the improvisational nature of participatory drama, the unpredictable responses and
consequences that happened in class were neither possible to be taken into account beforehand nor fully to be investigated immediately. Therefore, I chose to keep field notes as a source of data. After each session, I made detailed notes based on my observations in class. These notes were entirely based upon my own memory and constitute a record of the researcher’s perception of the programme.
Cohen, Morrison and Manion (2007) suggest that field notes can be written at the level of description and reflection. Detailed instructions have been given by predecessors (LeCompte and Preissle 1993; Spradley, 1980; Bogdan and Biklen, 1992). As to this research, I chose to apply O’Toole’s (2006) straightforward suggestions:
1) Limit and filter what you see through your selective lens.
2) Record your immediate reflections and thoughts about what is happening. 3) However centrally involved in the field work, keep a calm mind.
Therefore, the field notes based on my student observations mainly focused on:
1) Group work such as still images that provoked other students’ responses like laughter or surprise, especially from the blind angle that the camera could not capture.
2) Students’ responses to the important questions/ instructions, and the researcher’s immediate thoughts about those responses.
3) The moments when students became confused or impatient.
4) The moments when students could not finish the task or misunderstood the instructions.
After all that, however, the data generalized from research notes still remain rather partial and subjective. In addition, then, as Cohen, Morrison and Manion suggest that ‘observations should include both oral and visual data’
(2007: p.407), I used audio-visual recording as a powerful supplement to my written record.
Audio-visual recording
When I could obtain the approval from schools and students, the workshops in my research were recorded by camera all the way through. Cohen,
Manion and Morrison indicate that ‘audio-visual data collection has the capacity for completeness of analysis and comprehensiveness of material, reducing both the dependence on prior interpretations by the researcher and the possibility again of only recording events which happen frequently’ (2007: p. 313). As a mechanical recording device, the camera has no subjectivities thus its recorder is faithful to the events. Thus I saw the audio-visual data as a useful complement to my limited vision and could examine my recordings as a potential corrective to my partiality. Additionally, the form of a video record allowed me greater flexibility to examine the events. Since it can be watched repeatedly and liberally, I was able to do a careful analysis, and make additional observations anytime.
This combination of first-hand field notes and the audio-visual recording indeed allowed me to form an organized and systematic observation but I cannot deny its imperfections. Despite the constraints of time scale, the viewing angle, the image and sound quality of the video recording, the essential problem lies in the nature of observation, for it is of necessity a highly selective research method. One cannot forget that observation and video recording are both ‘operated’ by a researcher. Although video
still neglect some information when watching it. Observation as a vital approach to gathering qualitative data must, therefore, be combined with other forms of data collection.
Interview
In the semi-structured group interviews, all the interview questions for Parts 1 and 2 were asked at the same time. Therefore I shall not repeat the details and rationale of the interview, which I have already explained in the previous section. This section mainly focuses on the design of the interview questions. 01. Have you read the two original texts? Do you like them, which one do
you prefer?
02. Do you want to have a conversation with any characters in the two stories?.
03. Some of the drama work contained historical details, where did you get your inspiration from?
04. Did you feel other people’s responses in the drama exercises helped your understanding of the story?
05. Would you pass moral judgement on any of the characters?
06. Did working in role help you to understand the characters or the story? 07. Which drama exercises did you enjoy? Why?
The questions focus on three issues. Firstly, these students’ understanding or interest in the two modernist texts after the drama class, which aimed to investigate whether the drama teaching had engaged the students and whether the teaching had helped them connect with and make sense of the text (See Question 1). Secondly, the potential and effectiveness of the
participatory drama exercises. Questions 2, 4, 6, and 7 particularly focus on the interaction between the reader and the text; the function of a literary community, and any change of viewpoint. Third is the conflict between moral and aesthetic values. Question 5 directly enquired into this, whereas students’ responses to Question 2 also revealed their moral outlook towards the characters.
The constraints of the interview in this part of the research lie in the area of ethical concerns. I could not command students to read the original text or have an extra lecture/ seminar to analyse the text with them afterwards, when they could have reflected more deeply on their drama work. Therefore, only six of all the students that I interviewed read the original texts, which made a general investigation of participants’ understanding of the text very difficult. And to some extent, it also shows that my attempt at using drama to teach modernist literature did not lead to many good results, at least in terms of persuading students to want to read the original texts. Moreover, although students expressed their liking for some of the drama exercises, because I did not have the chance to explain the drama translation to them, their answers showed that they engaged in and enjoyed the exercises without really penetrating the thinking that guided them. This also constitutes a pedagogic failure on my behalf.