Advocators of action research agree that validity and reliability are principles that cannot be ignored if credibility is to be awarded (Borgia & Schuler, 1996, in Adendorff, 2007; Dick, 2000; Lather, 1986; Weiner, 2003; Winter, 1989, in Adendorff, 2007). In qualitative research the basic concepts of validity are not applied in the same manner in which they are applied to quantitative research (Neuman, 2006, in Oswald, 2010). In ensuring the validity of a study, a
researcher guarantees that the data actually reflects the phenomena that they claim to. Reliability on the other hand refers to the accuracy of data collected (Sagor, 2005).
Where the validity of action research is questioned, I refer to the following quote of Elliot (1991, in Hopkins, 2002, p. 43): "action-research 'theories' are not validated independently and then applied to practice. They are validated through practice". Winter (1996) maintains that in action research emphasis should not focus on the validity of findings, but rather on how rigorously the procedures are used. Henning et al. (2004) concur that the validity of a research inquiry is enhanced by "good craftsmanship", implying precision throughout the research process (Oswald, 2010, p. 202). For this reason, rigorous and systematic methodology will be adopted for this study.
Classroom action research has been around for a long time, but has gone through times of criticism and favour. Critics have questioned the teacher's ability to self-reflect and make judgments based on their reflections (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). To avoid this "data collector bias", I must be scrupulous about not allowing my awareness of the intentions of the study to influence my view on the results that I obtain, and note where my subjective opinion is being used (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008, p. 595). My personal experience and training in educational psychology and research methodology will also increase the validity of the data that I collect (Gay, 1987). The point to be emphasised is that of the researcher‟s reflexivity, summed up by Delmont (1992, in Walker, 1998, p. 250):
Each researcher is her own best data collection instrument, as long as she is constantly self-conscious about her role, her interactions, and her theoretical and empirical material as it accumulates. As long as qualitative researchers are reflexive, making all their processes explicit, then issues of reliability and validity are served.
Throughout the presentation of this research I have aimed to make my own positioning, with regard to personal perspectives, apparent, while providing solid reasoning for my decisions made. This is in an attempt to be transparent in my personal views and values (O'Hanlon, 2003). "Reflective critique" of one's research process in which the researcher thinks critically about what he/she has versus what is still required, is also an essential part of this open communication for improved validity (Winter, 1989 p. 43, in Adendorff, 2007, p. 54).
My reflection on the entire process aims to provide additional clarity of the reasoning behind certain decisions made throughout the research process. This open communication can also
be attained by "taking data and tentative interpretations back to the people from whom they were derived and asking them if the results are plausible" (Merriam, 1998, p. 204, in Oswald, 2010, p. 203). In this research study, tentative interpretations of data will be validated by using this procedure, commonly known as 'member checking' (O'Hanlon, 2003; Sagor, 2005; Silverman, 2010). The focus group interview will also provide a secondary opportunity to gain additional confirmation of interpretations from selected informants; as this data collection method acts as a complimentary strategy to the other qualitative data collection activities.
To increase the validity of the study, another procedure will be incorporated, known as 'cycling', in which I shift between action and reflection several times within the study (Reason & Riley, 2008). This allows the researcher to refine their understanding of the situation being investigated (Dick, 2000). By challenging initial information and interpretations, I will not only get richer data, but it will have increased validity as well (Reason & Riley, 2008). Working closely with my supervisor and co-supervisor as peer- consultants, is another strategy put in place so that external views can be placed on the research process to monitor their validity (Baumfield et al., 2008; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001).
With respect to validity, reliability and research quality, Weiner (2003) argues in support of action research on the condition that rigorous and high quality 'alternative frameworks' are used. To address this, and other issues of validity in the research, the technique of triangulation will be employed, in which three or more different data sources are used. These methods aim to provide 'multiple perspectives' and to cross-check data collected; thereby strengthening the validity of the inferences made from them (Baumfield et al., 2008; Borgia & Schuler, 1996, in Adendorff, 2007; Galyam & Le Grange, 2005; Lillis, 2001; Henning, van Rensburg & Smit, 2004; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001; O'Hanlon, 2003; Silverman, 2010; Walker, 1998). In this research inquiry, I endeavour to apply various data collection techniques and instruments, such as a research journal, learner reflections, an open-ended questionnaire, and a focus-group interview, for the triangulation process; in order to achieve greater validity.
It is quite apparent that action research challenges many assumptions of a traditional empiricist stance to research. Action research, in line with the social constructivist perspective of this inquiry, challenges the ownership of knowledge and refutes the idea of
there being a fixed reality. By its very nature, action research cannot be critiqued from differing paradigms (Roche, 2000). Winter (1986, in Roche, 2000), in fact, argues that action research is a new paradigm with a solid theoretical grounding. However, as with all research, verification must be produced to support any claims made by the researcher.
3.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
As Dick (2002, p. 21) puts it: "Ethical issues are inherent in any research study", and therefore, I too must address the ethical concerns related to my inquiry. Four principles guiding ethical research include: autonomy and respect; nonmaleficence; beneficence; and justice (Allan, 2008; Brydon-Miller, 2008; Oswald, 2010). These ethical principles are of significant importance in action research and are therefore also ethical considerations for this research inquiry. Adopting Wassenaar's (2006) framework, which includes the above four ethical principles for social sciences research, the following practical principles will be applied to this investigation.
Firstly, a partnership in which the research is conducted in collaboration with the informants, being driven by the needs and priorities of the informants, must be developed through the research (Wassenaar, 2006). In my inquiry, the informants' involvement, honest responses, reflections about their metacognitive development, and their views about the research, are crucial. Without their collaborative input, the findings would be irrelevant. Simultaneously, the aims of this research are directed by the perceived need to enhance these learners' metacognition. Action research (and therefore this study) inherently values this respect principle even further because it assumes that all individuals have the capacity to contribute to the process of knowledge generation (Brydon-Miller, 2008).
Secondly, research needs to provide an extent of social value in order to be considered ethical (Allan, 2008; Wasenaar, 2006). The research questions of this study attempt, through the research process, to enhance the learners' metacognitive abilities, while contributing to the development of my teaching practice. The latter could be of added benefit to others in society, such as teachers, researchers, and others. To add to the ethical social value of this research inquiry, I feel that all the learners in the research population (namely, my whole Grade 9 Natural Sciences class) have the right to benefit from my metacognitively adapted teaching procedures. If I choose to work with only a select sample for the entire process, I feel that this would disadvantage the rest of the class group not involved. It was for this
reason of maintaining the ethical principles that I decided to split the data collection into two phases: to include my entire Grade 9 Natural Sciences class in the first phase, so that they can all have the opportunity to gain from the sessions; and to work with only 9 learners as informants in the second phase.
Adding to this social value of the study, Greenwood and Levin (in Brydon-Miller, 2008, p. 199) see action research as "central to the enactment of a commitment to democratic social transformation through social research". Values that underlie most forms of action research include participation in democratic processes and improvement of human life. The benefits of a research study therefore need to outweigh the risks involved. With the presentation of the problem statement, along with a rationale for the research in Section1.2, it is clear that the research benefits outweigh the risks.
The ethical principle of respect is valued due to the fact that it provides research informants with the opportunity to decline to participate in the particular study, and this is addressed in the informed assent and informed consent process (Brydon-Miller, 2008). Informed assent to participate is required from the informants (Addendum D), and their parents (Addendum E), as well as the school (Addendum C), must provide their informed consent before the research can be considered ethical. Before ethical consent can be given, relevant parties must be appropriately informed about the study (including the benefits and risks). Additionally, informants must be notified that it is voluntary to participate, and they have the right to decline or withdraw from the study at any point. Lastly, this consent should be formalised in writing (Allan, 2008; Health Professions Council of South Africa, 2007a; Wassenaar, 2006). Respect for the informants' privacy and reputation also need to be taken into account. This will be addressed by ensuring that no names or identities of any of the learner informants will be exposed (Rust & Meyers, 2003). This links to maintaining the confidentiality of informants' identifying data (Rust & Meyers, 2003; Wasenaar, 2006). In this research inquiry, the confidentiality will be maintained with the use of pseudonyms for both the school and the informants. The informants will be asked to choose their own pseudonym. Winter (1996) maintains that the researcher is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of a study. The sample informants will be invited to participate in the study on a voluntary basis, with the assurance that they may at any time withdraw from the study with no consequences (Allan, 2008; Health Professions Council of South Africa, 2007a). This covers the justice principle of ethics. Ethical clearance from both the supervising university's ethics committee (Addendum
A), as well as the Western Cape Education Department (Addendum B), also forms part of the ethical conduct for this research inquiry.
In addition to the above, by including the following inquiry skills and validity procedures, the quality of the study can be improved. Firstly, I will need to be present by incorporating empathy and resonance, while also being open to the meaning that I, and others, give to experiences. I need to be open to reframing the defining assumptions that I pose on a context. Being aware during the research process of the relationship between my purposes, my norms and theories, my bodily practice, and the outside world, is important during the inquiry. I will need to be aware of any lack of congruency between these different facets and adjust them accordingly. I will also need to identify and manage emotional states in various ways (Reason & Riley, 2008) and I will, therefore, need to reflect on my research process regularly; so as to "develop … [my] understanding of the ethical implications associated with social and educational investigation" (Burgess, 1989, p. 8).
By embodying ethics within my own practice as an action researcher, I will need to begin with a critical examination of myself as an individual researcher in this process, articulating my own value system, my multiple identities, locations of power and privilege, and how these influence my interaction with others and the research process (Brydon-Miller, 2008). At the same time, I will need to keep in mind that the learners who participate in the study also have their own sets of values and systems of power. Working with learners, I will have to reflect on my recognition of the ethical demands of the teacher-learner relationship, and attempt to understand and monitor this relationship, including the power-dynamics, to ensure that my primary goal remains in the best interests of the learners (Brydon-Miller, 2008). To ignore this would be ethically inappropriate. The issue of protection of parties involved in the research process must also be addressed. Coercion can be an issue in any form of research, action research included. Therefore, in order to address this, understanding the problem within the context of the "close, committed relationships that typify action research settings" requires thorough interpretation and reflection (Brydon-Miller, 2008, p. 202). This will help me to maintain my ethical commitments to the research study and informants.
Any research inquiry faces ethical issues that need to be addressed. This section aimed to provide a thorough explanation of the ethical considerations of this research study.