Mezcla del aire y combustible

Methods refer to the techniques and procedures used in the process of gathering data (Cohen et al., 2000). Multiple methods were used in this research, including observations and interviews (with field notes and audio- taping), surveys, and the collection of primary documents. These were analysed and compared. Ongoing dialogue between the researcher and the teachers helped ensure the analysis was valid from the teachers’ perspectives.

3.4.1 Observations

Bell (1999) suggests careful observation can often reveal characteristics of groups or individuals that would be impossible to discover by other means. Interviews reveal how people perceive what happens, rather than what actually happens. Observations may be more reliable than what people say in some instances (Nisbet & Watt 1984).

The researcher was a participant observer in each of the three classrooms, participating in some class activities and discussions. The observations were semi-structured, focusing on the teachers’ pedagogy and student responses. Field notes were taken during the observations. Lesson processes and content were noted. Questioning techniques and interaction between individuals were also of interest, as was anything related to support mechanisms for teaching ethics in science. The notes served to trigger the researcher’s memory for impressions gained, and allowed for triangulation with data from interviews and written surveys in order to increase trustworthiness. The researcher was aware of possible bias, so interpretation was cross-checked with teachers and students in informal and formal

interviews, and with member checking after the observations were written up.

Cohen et al. (2000) note that behaviour may change under observation. The researcher had taught at this school less than a year previously and knew the students. After a polite greeting, they continued with their work as they normally would, indicating that they were not affected by the observation. Two teachers noted and verified this.

All of the classroom lessons that the researcher attended were also audio-taped, as were the teacher development sessions and the interviews with teachers and some students. The transcripts, in conjunction with the field notes and other data, were used to write up the case studies, which were later checked for accuracy by the teachers.

3.4.2 Interviews

An interview is a conversation initiated by the interviewer to obtain research information. One advantage of an interview is that the information may be explored in greater depth. However, awareness of researcher bias and subjectivity is necessary.

Interviews with the participating teachers formed an important part of this research, and provided many significant benefits. Firstly, the interviews provided a quiet and reflective time where teachers expressed their feelings honestly and openly about the support given for teaching ethics in science. Secondly, they also verified whether information from observations was accurate. Thirdly, the researcher was able to follow up on, and seek explanation for, some of the teaching practice. Fourthly, the interviews gave the researcher the opportunity to be ‘filled in’ on relevant incidental lessons, conversations and lessons where the researcher had not been present. Fifthly, the teachers were able to reflect on the use of the planner and supports, and provide feedback as to how helpful these were.

Finally, the interviews added a greater degree of depth and detail to the case studies than would otherwise have been obtained.

One interview was also conducted with a group of five students from one class, because the researcher was only able to observe one lesson in that classroom and the class was unable to complete the survey referred to below. It was helpful to interview a random selection of students to gain an understanding of what they had learned and enjoyed during the ethics in science lessons. This interview, in conjunction with copies of the teachers’ planning documents and the students’ work, and the researcher’s observations, provided opportunities for data triangulation in this classroom.

3.4.3 Surveys

Surveys were distributed at the completion of the ethics in science lessons to the students in two of the three classes. The survey asked the students about their learning and enjoyment of tasks during the exploration of ethics in science (Appendix 2).

The teachers were also given a survey (Appendix 2) at the conclusion of the research lessons, and this survey formed the basis of a final interview. The survey questions asked the teachers how they felt about teaching ethics in science in the research lessons, and what was helpful to them in this process. They were also asked specifically whether the planner was helpful and if they had any suggested changes. The teachers were given a significant amount of time to complete the survey, and to formulate their views in writing prior to the interview. The researcher was able to refer to these answers during the interview, and to engage the teachers in a more in-depth discussion on their experiences.

3.4.4 Primary documents

how the teachers interpreted the planners for teaching ethics in science and used them. The teachers’ planning also gave insight, through the questions, strategies and activities used, into teacher pedagogy. Visual scaffolds, such as A3-sized Benefit/Harm lists and Pros/Cons mind maps showing effects of the ethics issue on stakeholders revealed how the teachers developed concepts and constructs for learning. Examples of students’ work included lists of stakeholders and the particular consequences for them, Plus-Minus- Interesting (PMI) matrices and transactional writing on the ethics issue. These gave insight into students’ understanding of the ethical issue.

3.5 RESEARCH SETTING

The research for this study took place from July to November 2009. As previously stated, three classes and three teachers from one school were involved. Two teachers were initially selected; the third was included at his own request. This provided an opportunity to further strengthen the trustworthiness of the research while enhancing the development of a young and enthusiastic teacher. The researcher, having previously taught at this school, had a reasonable understanding of the background of the teachers, their general pedagogy and their background in science. This, along with the fact that the principal was supportive of teacher development in science, was helpful in preparing for teacher development for teaching ethics in science.

The research began with two teacher development sessions, facilitated by the researcher. These were based on the researcher’s previous experience in assisting to develop a bioethics teaching programme. The teachers were introduced to the concept of ethics in science through power point presentations (Appendix 3; Appendix 4). The second session took place seven weeks after the first session, due to school holidays and for the convenience of the teachers. In the second session the material was revisited and the ethics-in-science planner, which had been designed for this research, was distributed to the teachers. The lessons, observations, surveys and interviews followed over the ensuing weeks, dependent on teachers’ timetables.

Prior to and independent of this research, six senior teachers of the school undertook professional development in teaching science. This resulted in the senior school teaching a science unit on fire. The three teachers involved in the current research incorporated their ethics in science exploration at the end of this unit.

In terms of the wider setting, the school is a medium to large-sized primary school with a decile nine ranking. Students are predominantly from a medium to high socio-economic background. The school is well regarded by the community and is known for its innovative practice and quality of staff. The school is often involved in academic research projects. In designing the research, consideration was given to the participants and the background of the researcher was acknowledged as is discussed in the following sections.

3.5.1 The participants

Lynda (a pseudonym) is an experienced teacher with over 20 years of classroom experience. She is extremely well regarded in the community and within the school and has won a ‘best teacher’ award. Having previously worked with her as part of a teaching team, the researcher was aware of her style and pedagogical approaches within the classroom.

Amy (a pseudonym) is a young teacher in her third year of teaching. She was selected because of her interest in science and her willingness to take risks and to try new ideas.

Anton (a pseudonym) is a young teacher also in his third year teaching. Anton asked if he could join the research because he desires to develop science education in his classroom. His presence gave the research a male perspective. This was significant in terms of reducing bias, particularly since the support offered by the researcher is from a female perspective and may be more appealing to, and ‘user-friendly’ for, females.

The particular teachers were selected to participate in the research to demonstrate how teachers with varying levels of experience might teach ethics in science, using the support provided by the researcher. Of particular interest was the way each teacher might interpret and use the ethics-in- science planner.

3.5.2 The researcher

In research it is important to understand the viewpoint and subculture of the researcher, as these may have an effect on the validity of the research due to possible strengths and bias of the researcher. In this instance, background experience was instrumental in enabling the researcher to create and facilitate the teacher development programme. She was able to draw on her primary school teaching experience of more than 16 years, including two years of specialised teaching in science and technology. The researcher completed a postgraduate diploma in science and technology education, and at the same time was involved in research in science and technology education, including the development of an online tool for teaching ethics. That research included assisting in providing a professional development programme for teaching bioethics. In addition, the researcher has written online biotechnology unit plans for teachers and has facilitated professional development for primary teachers for science teaching.

The researcher was also well known to the participants. This meant that a rapport was already established and the participants were relaxed about being observed, and comfortable in expressing their opinions in a friendly and supportive environment. The researcher acted mostly in the role of participant observer; this participation reduced the possible ‘observer effect’, contributing to a relaxed classroom atmosphere.

The researcher also developed the classroom planner for teaching ethics-in-science, the focal point for this research. This was based on the InSiTE science planners (Moreland, Cowie, & Jones, 2008), other researchers’

suggestions (Buntting & Jones, personal communication, 20 July, 2009) and some input from the teachers.