Otras notas autorales extratextuales (análogas a elementos paratextuales)

In view of the studies reviewed in this chapter, a number of important limitations stand

out in relation to the scope of our current RE in (EL)TE knowledge and to the methods

utilised to construct this knowledge:

1. In the narrow research field of methodical RE in (EL)TE, it appears that the available empirical studies could not go beyond the confines of a single module to investigate how educational research is taught and learnt (Kilburn et al., 2014).

2. In initial ELTE, it seems that no empirical evidence exists as to the policy and national curriculum level representations of the taught, explicitly-intended RE units (Garner et al., 2009).

3. The majority of the RE in ITE studies has been conducted and reported by the tutor(s) of the RE units. Alternative outsider perspectives are scarce (e.g. Reis-Jorge, 1999). 4. The majority of the RE in ITE studies primarily utilised the quantitative method of

questionnaires to ‘evaluate’ RE units and student perceptions, experiences and knowledge. Therefore, rich insights into the detailed content and delivery of these units are lacking.

5. Very little is known about student-teachers’ perceptions of the value of a given RE unit (or RE in general) in the curriculum (Lombard and Kloppers, 2015). Moreover, the limited number of studies that did investigate this matter mostly utilised the questionnaire method which comprised tutor-constructed set of possible values instead of student-constructed sets.

Considering these limitations, the present case study, in empirical terms, aims to:

 go beyond the confines of a single RE unit and explore its formally stated relation to and place in the overall ELTE curriculum in its institutional and policy contexts.  bring multiple ‘desirable’ RE perspectives (formally stated, observed and perceived

RE ‘realities’) into a single picture (a case) from the eye of an outsider researcher, utilising qualitative methods of data collection and analysis.

 engage the STs in the RE unit in a collaborative dialogue (by way of the repertory grid interview method) with the researcher about their lived experiences of researching in all ‘thinkable’ layouts utilised in different modules for its framing (perceptions of what constitutes research) and investigate the value they individually see in these experiences in their own terms.

69

Finally, in the light of the foregoing research aims, the case study seeks to address the

following research questions that situate the aims of the case study.

Formally Stated RE Reality:

1. What is the formally stated place of research education in the Turkish HEC-supervised initial ELTE programme in North Cyprus?

1.1 What mentions of research education are there, if at all, in the Turkish HEC’s selected documents of UBITE history and practice?

1.2 What are the modules in the initial ELTE programme`s national curricula models that are explicitly framed to involve research education?

1.2.1 How have these modules evolved in time as reported in the selected HEC documents?

1.3 How do the latest versions of these national modules compare and contrast with those delivered in the case study context?

1.3.1 How binding, if at all, does the key informant (programme representative) find the role of national module-models on influencing their actual implementation?

Observed RE Reality:

2. How is explicit research education implemented in initial ELTE in the case study context?

Perceived RE Realities:

3. What are the participant student-teachers’ perceptions of research education activities in the case study context?

3.1 What activities have the student-teachers engaged in during their BA in ELT studies that they consider as research or research-related?

3.2 How do the student-teachers conceptualise these activities?

3.3 What do the STs’ RepGrid matrices reveal about the extent to which they perceived the AWaRS experience as a ‘good’ research education experience?

In theoretical terms, the case study aims to contribute to the emerging ‘dialogue of

pedagogical culture’ (Garner et al., 2009) around the teaching and learning of educational research by constructing an initial, flexible yet sufficiently inclusive

literature-informed conceptual framework of ‘good’/’desirable’ RE in teacher

education and development (2.5) and re-evaluate it in view of the empirical outcomes

70

CHAPTER III

Methodology

3.1 Introduction

In Chapter III, I aim to outline, discuss and justify the research paradigm and

methodological approach that underpin the case study. I start with discussing

constructivism which seems most appropriate for the focus and aims of the present

study (3.2). In the previous chapter, I indicated that (to my knowledge) no empirical

study seems available wherein an exploration of multiple research education (RE) ‘realities’ simultaneously within distinct contexts of initial (pre-service) ELTE was an aim. A constructivist mindset, which has such mottos as ‘perspective’, ‘interpretation’ and ‘alternative meaning’ at heart, thus seemed best suited epistemologically to inform my methodological decision-making, especially during the study’s planning phase. In

investigating and re-constructing formally stated, observed and perceived ‘realities’ of

RE in an ELTE programme of studies in North Cyprus, I thereby intend to contribute

to the narrow research field of RE in teacher education and development.

I piloted and utilised different research instruments in order to construct the three RE ‘reality’ domains. The investigation of the perceived RE ‘realities’ involved use of the Repertory Grid (RepGrid) interview method developed by George Kelly in 1955 as

part of his Personal Construct Theory (PCT). In section 3.2 about constructivism, I

discuss briefly PCT’s epistemological relation with the constructivist paradigm. Section 3.3 builds on this introduction and situates PCT and the RepGrid in relation

to the present study.

Section 3.4 presents and justifies how the reported study took form as ‘case study’,

71

the collection, management, analysis and reporting of data was planned and

undertaken. Next, I situate these processes in relation to principles of rigour in

qualitative research (3.9). I then finalise the chapter with a discussion of ethical

considerations (field access, participant consent, confidentiality, language and

translation) in section 3.10.