Etapa preventiva

Saldana (2003) advocated that a rigid research design can become a handicap over time and that improvements through developmental methods and mixed methodology can engender deeper understandings. And though the bias of this study leans towards qualitative approaches, quantitative research should not be shunned or shied away from. Statistics are a valuable source of information if appropriated to support or corroborate qualitative discoveries.

Below is a synopsis of the research schedule undertaken in the academic years 2006-7 and 2007-8 at the host school with cohorts A and B (for 2008-9, 2009-10 see Appendix H) which used the NFER’s quantitive ‘First Cross-Sectional’ survey (Kerr et al., 2001-10) and in the second year the CEDAR survey (Strand, 2008) as a base line guide to the informers attitude to school, PSE lessons and Shakespeare appreciation:

1. (2006-7) Gain access to the ‘comparative group’ (Macintyre, 2000, p.61) of informers through the school ‘gatekeepers’ (Denscombe, 2003, p.45) and then randomly choose a manageable number of students for cohort A.

2. Obtain written consent from the parents/guardians for their child to be part of this longitudinal study, as well as obtain corroborating agreement from the student’s themselves at the first interview.

3. First Interview using the quantitative NFER/DES ‘First Cross-Sectional Survey’ (2001-2, Appendix I). Cohort A informers will be invited to participate in thrice yearly home interviews in order to assess their perception of PSD pedagogy and, through neo- Kohlbergian conundrums, their own PSD will be gauged and subsequently triangulated through parental interviews. Widen the content of the questions in order that the informers can relate other issues of importance in their lives which could correlate to Shakespeare appreciation, and/or personal and social development - and/or the impact of the former on the latter.

4. Observe cohort A in PSD and Shakespeare lessons (English and Drama).

5. Interview the Form/PSD teachers (Appendix I) in three semi-structured interviews in order to triangulate observation made on their student’s development.

6. Make diary entries on any tangential information gleaned in/out of the school which can help inform analysis of the PSD of the informers.

7. Gather any other relevant information on cohort A through school reports, casual conversation, written work etc.

1. (2007-8) Confirm that cohort A want to continue in this research programme for a second year and conduct the interviews and observations as per stages 3-7 (2006-7 above).

2. Cohort B - randomly choose a manageable number of students. (stages 1 and 2, 2006-7 above).

3. Throughout the academic year continue to observe cohort A in PSD and Shakespeare lessons and observe cohort B, as per stages 3-7 (2006-7). As well as observing PSD lessons with cohort B, facilitate in some of those lessons - using Shakespeare’s story of

Romeo and Juliet as a catalyst to stimulate Socratic dialogue on PSD topics such as: ‘What is a Community?’ ‘What are our issues?’ ‘Knife crime – then and now.’ ‘Give advice to the Montague and Capulet families’.

4. Conduct three structured and semi-structured interviews with cohort A, B, and their parents/guardians. The design of cohort B’s home interviews will closely follow the pattern set by cohort A - though this is a comparative, not comparison, exercise. In 2007- 8 the ‘Quarry’ problem will be introduced to cohort A in order to assess response to wider social issues. When the quantitative CEDAR (Strand, 2008) survey becomes available, both cohorts will be interviewed in order to establish their representability to the wider population, vis-à-vis Shakespeare appreciation.

5. Interview the Form/PSD teachers of both cohorts.

6. Make diary entries on any tangential information gleaned in/out of the school for both cohorts.

7. Pay particular attention to the home thinking (cohort B), and any written work by both cohorts during Shakespeare study.

8. Encourage the informers and participants in cohort B to contribute to the action research design.

Figure 4.1 Research schedule with cohorts A and B (2006-8)

The key skill to be measured by Kohlberg’s ‘six stages in moral reasoning’ (5.2.1) and the ‘Quarry’ issue (Huddleston, 2009; Appendix G) was the ability to philosophise on relevant personal and social conundrums (Krebs and Denton, 2005) during the home interviews. The overarching theory being that if the Socratic method used in the PSD

sessions with cohort B - namely, discussions on relevant conundrums arising from the Shakespearean stories - developed the ability to philosophise on the actions taken by characters in Shakespeare’s fictional life-world then, in the privacy of the home interviews, the PSD of the informers will be measurable (Galbraith and Jones, 1976) through philosophising on conundrums which appertain to the informer’s real life-world.

Therefore, there could be a correlation between philosophising skill development during the action research and the informers’ response to everyday conundrums. And though Duska and Whelan (1975) argued that interview dissemination based on responses to ‘moral dilemmas’ is not the same as research on ‘moral behaviour’ (p.43), Krebs and Denton’s research (2005; 3.9) did link moral judgement to everyday moral conundrums, on the basis that the more mature the informer’s understanding of why a moral choice is right or wrong, the greater the possibility that they will behave in accordance with that understanding.

Perakyla’s (2005) ‘Analysis of Talk and Text’ (title) was particularly helpful when considering the particularity of the material needed for the archive. Perakyla writes that there was a need to record the signs the informers transmit in response to a conundrum - and this recollection would be aided by listening to the interview recordings in parallel with the transcripts. And the use of conversation and discourse analysis (3.6) can also underpin the informers’ cognitive and emotional realities and discover meaning in their responses - although, Derrida (1976) cautiously notes that ‘neither can “master” the text [...] in any ultimate sense’ (cited in Stringer, 2007, p.199).

Perakyla (2005) suggestion that notes should be made on how the interviews produced different levels of power and reflect on the effect of the presence of a peer (in joint home interviews), a parent, a sibling - and the omnipresence of the researcher (p.877-8) had on the informers was particularly helpful. And finally Perakyla (2005) noted that ‘what is not said’ (p.873) in the interviews needs analysing - which, in a longitudinal, triangulated research project could prove illuminating.

The archive would also consist of formal interviews held with the informers’ PSD teachers24 and because action research is a ‘collective process’, which of itself develops a ‘sense of community’ (Stringer, 2007, p.11), feedback was solicited from students and teachers alike through the voluntary home thinking exercises25 handed out after most PSD sessions (2007-10) - for example:

HOME THINKING - A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Student’s name……….

1. Are my Sessions different from your other PSE lessons, and if they are in what ways? ……….………

2. Do you think that PSE topics (like: bullying, healthy living, self respect, learning to be part of a community) can help in other subjects you study, and if so - in what way can PSE topics help?...……… 3. Do you learn PSE better through:

a) discussion with your mates………....

24 _{With the cooperation of the Deputy headteacher cohort B had the same PSD/Form teachers throughout}

the three years of action research. This meant that these teachers had an invaluable accumulation of data on the informers’ PSD during this study.

b) by teachers telling you things………

c) or by working through booklets……..(TICK which one(s) you agree with) d) or any other best ways………...

4. Being ‘empathetic’ means understanding how another person feels, or what they are going through. Can you ever understand how another person feels?………....

Figure 4.2 Sample: home thinking exercise TEACHER FEED BACK- Y7 PSE lesion* - ‘COMMUNITY’ Name...

(I know you’re busy BUT I’d really appreciate this feedback…) 1. What worked?...

2. What did not work? ...

3. What did I miss? ...

4. What could I do better? ...

Figure 4.3 Sample: teacher’s feedback form

By the end of the first year of observations and action research with cohort B, as the idea developed that PHSFE and Citizenship cannot be taught using dominant pedagogic practice, I began to call the PSE lessons* - PSE ‘sessions’. ‘Session’ seemed a more participative and inclusive word and the students did respond to being involved in a different-kind-of-lesson from the ones they normally attended: brilliant; everyone

involved; I liked the sessions because we got to interact and had fun - Brians

As well as the aforementioned key data the archive will also consisted of daily diary entries which recorded observations on the informers (in and out of school), staff room gossip about the informers, Monday morning staff room briefings by Headteacher, Deputy and Assistant headteachers, informal conversations with teachers and classroom assistants, interviews with the various ‘gatekeepers’ (Scott, 2004 cited in Christensen and James, 2004, p.105) in the school and finally, the transcripts of the sound recordings of the PSD sessions in the host school which provided deep understanding of the impact of the action research on the participants and offered pointers as to how the action research cycle could be continually re-assessed and re-designed (Macintyre, 2000; 3.6; Figure 3.1).

Saldana (2003) argued that if the gathering process for the archive has been diverse enough then the discoveries can be deemed to have gravitas. However, such a multiplicity of research methodologies and methods could also become overly intrusive and insensitive? McCorm’s (1973) criteria - would the means used to address the ‘research issue’ (Trafford and Leshem, 2008, p.171) cause more harm than is necessary? (3.4)? - needed continually revisiting. This study had to adhere to ‘the principles of benefit maximisation and the principle of equal respect’ (Strike, 1990 cited in Cohen et al., 2006, p.68. my emphasis).

I concluded that participative action research (3.6), as a form of self-reflective and group-reflective inquiry, is philosophically suited to an investigation aimed at taking students away from individual learning and towards communal exploration, and that

sensitively held home interviews were the way forward. I further concluded all and any information on the informers - in and out of school - added depth of understanding of their PSD. What was needed in this longitudinal study was ‘a deeper understanding of the significance of the childhood experience’ (NAGTY, 2007, p.8) - in as much detail as possible.

Having established that diverse archive material was needed for this study the next piece of the jigsaw puzzle, the base-line design for the session plans (Figure 3.1, Step 3), could be developed in preparation for the start of the action research with cohort B (Figure 3.1, Steps 4-7) in September 2007.