Observaciones y análisis

In order to examine four teaching methods, a large number of participants was required to conduct the study over a significant period of time. Indeed, it would have been difficult to source a large number of voluntary participants who could commit to an academic year of learning CFL and conducting various evaluations. Therefore, the researcher decided that teaching students of a secondary school would be best to allow for the research to run over the course of an academic year in a controlled classroom environment. However, so as not to interfere with coursework for the State

examinations, the researcher decided it would be best to target transition-year students for involvement in the research. Transition year is a year in Irish secondary schools between the two State-examined curricula: the Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate programmes (akin to GCSEs and A-levels in the UK). During this year, students do not sit State examinations. Therefore, transition year allows students to study subjects such as computer programming, mindfulness, and politics in order to broaden their learning outside of traditional subjects. Additional languages are also often taught (Department of Education and Skills, 2019), thus the suitability of teaching CFL to students of transition year. Once this was decided, the next step was to seek ethical approval from Dublin City University’s Research Ethics Committee (DCU REC) as well as permission to conduct the study in a chosen school, which is explained in more detail in section 3.3.2.1.

86

The researcher wrote (via email) to eight schools seeking interest in the research. These eight schools were chosen based on the number of transition-year students available to participate and the location of the schools. The email provided background information on the researcher and included details of the research (see Appendix A). The purpose of this email was to allow for interested schools to contact the researcher and set up a meeting whereby full details of the study could be disclosed.

Of these eight schools contacted, two schools replied stating their interest in the study. The researcher then set up two meetings with the schools’ respective Principals and transition-year co-ordinators to explain in more detail the reason for conducting the research and exactly what the year would entail for their students. This was also an opportunity for the researcher to gauge the suitability of each school in terms of participant numbers for the year and the school’s enthusiasm for the research. Upon completion of the meetings, it was decided after much consideration from the researcher and guidance from the researcher’s supervisor that the most suitable school would be the one in which there was a promise of approximately 90 transition-year students, as well as great support from the school for the research. The school allocated the researcher two hours per week per group (28 weeks and four groups), meaning that each group of participants would be exposed to 56 hours of learning CFL in the classroom during the academic year.

87

Once the school was notified of their suitability for the research, formal written

permission needed to be obtained from the principal to provide to the DCU REC, stating their willingness to partake in the research. Once this was supplied to the DCU REC, full ethical approval was sought and granted, and the researcher therefore obtained permission to carry out the research (see section 3.3.2.1). As well as this, the school requested that the researcher become Garda vetted, and so this was also completed. Garda vetting is essentially a criminal record check carried out by Ireland’s National Police Service (An Garda Síochána) and prohibits an individual from working or volunteering with an organisation should they have a criminal record. Garda vetting is a common procedure requested by organisations in which an individual will have contact with children or vulnerable people, and therefore the process further ensured the safety of the participants of the current research.

The participant pool therefore consisted of approximately 90 participants aged 14-16 and consisted of both males and females. Further details of the participant profile can be viewed in Chapter 4 (see section 4.1).

3.3.2.1. Ethical approval

The researcher applied for ethical approval from the DCU REC prior to contacting the eight schools, and once the school had been chosen and agreed to take part in the research, the approval was granted. This was quite a lengthy process, and in total took approximately three months to complete. Great care and detail had to be supplied as the

88

researcher was to be dealing with participants under the age of 18 for an entire academic year. Contact was also made with the Child Protection Officer both in DCU and in the school, as the protection of the participants was and still remains of utmost importance to the researcher.

A task that needed to be completed in the early stages of the study was to receive permission from all parents/guardians and the participants to allow for the results of the evaluations, answers from the questionnaires, and general classroom observations to be used anonymously in the research. Informed consent, as defined by Cohen, Manion, and Morisson (2011), refers to the participant’s right to freedom. When this freedom is somewhat restricted by participating in research, consent is required to protect the participant should anything go wrong (ibid.). Due to the fact that the current research would not disrupt the participant’s participation in other subjects, and the fact that the lessons would run as a regular class during school hours in a public school environment, the researcher stated in writing during the process of obtaining consent that there would be no risk involved in participating in the study that was greater than risks already encountered during everyday life. Obtaining this consent involved the researcher speaking at a meeting held at the beginning of the year for all parents/guardians of the participants in order to explain the research and why it was being conducted, and indeed why the researcher needed to use the results of the evaluations and questionnaires in the research. The researcher also explained this to all participants in the first week of classes. During this time the researcher reassured the parents/guardians and participants that the anonymity of the participants was of utmost importance in the study and

89

allowed the parents/guardians and participants to ask any questions regarding the research. Once this was completed, the researcher distributed the Plain Language Statement and the Informed Consent and Assent forms that were signed and witnessed and returned to the researcher over the following days. The Plain Language Statement stated the purpose of the study, what it would entail, and included contact details for the researcher and the DCU REC (see Appendix B).

The Informed Consent forms and Assent forms were practically identical to each other, with only minor differences in the language used according to the person addressed, for example: using ‘your child’ for the Informed Consent forms and ‘you’ for the Assent form (see Appendix B). In these forms, information surrounding the anonymity of the participants as well as the right to withdraw from the research was highlighted. It was stated that neither the school nor the participants would be mentioned in the write-up of the research, and that all physical copies of the evaluations and questionnaires would be kept in a locked drawer only accessible to the researcher. The researcher also notified participants and their parents/guardians that the evaluations and questionnaires would be destroyed after a period of five years, thus protecting the privacy of both the school and the participants. These forms required signatures of the parents/guardians and

90