PALABRAS FINALES

Throughout the data collection period, reflections on the research experience were documented. A researcher journal was written five times a week in the three week period using Evernote allowing data entry from mobile and desktop devices (Evernote 2007). An excerpt from the researcher journal is as follows, shown here as an example:

There were moments of learning where the participants specifically referred to a breakthrough of some type. This was definitely cognitive, they were aware of the moment and experienced some change in awareness as a result of the moment. There was a sense of moving through an obstacle, hurdle or challenge and reaching a new state of being after the moment. Participants report a greater sense of freedom after these moments. They also report that is an end result of a process - referring to breakthroughs happening "finally" - indicating that this was something that had been elusive to them that they had climaxed to after some attempt at noticing the specific hurdle before being able to do anything about it (Researcher Journal, RN1, 12/09/12).

The researcher and the facilitator met several days before each workshop to discuss and plan the workshop structure and activities. The journal was examined prior to meeting the facilitator to inform the design of the following workshops and used immediately after each workshop and video recall to document observations. The journal was exported into NVivo, and informed coding, structure of the research hierarchy and development of memos, which in turn was used to inform design of this thesis structure. Seven reiterations of coding were attempted. The iterations are explored later in this chapter as levels in the research hierarchy. The primary rounds of coding were thematic, categorising data in each source as either demonstration of art form or of pedagogy. The secondary rounds of coding looked at data sources where it was thought demonstration of metacognition, meta-emotion and metaxis could

be prevalent. The tertiary rounds of analysis explored development of specific types or categories of description of the four participants in this research and the final rounds of analysis looked at how the first three levels were conducive to dramatic engagement and where there was evidence of this in the data sources.

During each workshop real-time notes were taken against each activity in the lesson plan by the researcher. After the workshop these notes were expanded to include variations from the lesson plan, observations from the researcher on facilitator and participant behaviours, key notes for design of the following workshop and reflection on any demonstrable moments of dramatic engagement.

During the course of the research period, the researcher attended five international conferences and presented on various components of the data collection (Pheasant 2014, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2018). Initial commentary on findings was published in a peer reviewed journal (Pheasant 2015). Notes from these events and reflections as a result of presenting at the conferences are also included in the Researcher Notes. Data and findings of this research were shared during these conferences and publication with current researchers and practitioners enhancing the validity of the research.

Once the participants’ experiences of dramatic engagement were captured in as much detail as possible, with respect for the individual's own unique individual experience and their perspective on the phenomena, focus was made on variations in the participants’ understandings and of the space in between the participants’ experiences (Åkerlind 2008). This creation of an outcome space is a phenomenographic method for extrapolation from a sample set of experiences into creation of much broader definition of the experience (in this case dramatic engagement). Done through a reiterative series of analysis, theory construction, reanalysis and theory reconstruction of the space in between the participant experiences, seven distinct cycles were made and are described in this section in detail. Variation Theory was further used to aid in this process. This is another phenomenographic tool to help expand an understanding of a specific phenomenon by mapping what it is, as reported by participants, and also what it is not (Åkerlind 2005). Participant experiences were placed on a variety of one- dimensional and two-dimensional spectrums, and the spaces further out on each axis explored and defined. This started to build the construct of dramatic engagement beyond the experience of the participants. From this process, a typology evolved to describe the phenomena. Models were used to describe each type to aid in conceptual visualisation. The types were then tested for construct validity. At each stage a cyclic process of reflection, discussion and new perspectives was documented in the form of the researcher journal. This allowed for documentation of reliability checks. Analysis of the data from different modes and formats created at different times in the process increased the validity of the data. Comparisons and contrasts were made of two participant cases with special focus on a borderline case, one of the participants who did not fit in with the other two groups. The four participants analysed in this manner were Kang, Mateo, Hiro and Mee. In the researcher notes descriptions were made of personal reflections with the emergent data and themes. The researcher notes captured and described a further

perspective on dramatic engagement, so was also used as one of the reference points. After exhaustion of the data analysis, a final interrogation enriched the data with further analysis to ensure validity (Åkerlind 2008).

Communicative and pragmatic validity were ensured by documenting the researcher’s responses to presentations and conferences, including how the data analysis and presentation of the findings was adjusted accordingly. Feedback was sought from peers, supervisors, intended audience (teachers) and a group of fellow researchers. This has ensured communicative validity. Useful insights from the research regarding teaching and learning were also discussed at five international conferences and three teacher professional development sessions around Australia to ensure pragmatic validity checks. Feedback from these sessions was documented in the researcher journal. This process for development of key themes has been followed and discussed in findings in Chapters Four, Five and Six.

To further understand the concepts emerging in the research around engagement and to ensure capture of a multi-dimensional and holistic definition of dramatic engagement, application was made of the useful pedagogical tools provided by Marton and Booth (1997). These authors posited that by manipulating how one observes an object or phenomenon, one can gain a greater understanding of it. They posit that learning about or describing something is not just about describing the object itself but by also describing the way participants observe or experience the object. Some tools of analysis include contrast, generalisation, separation and fusion. These tools have been validated by several researchers in teacher education to teach a specific concept (Tong 2012; Cheung 2008; Marton, Runesson, and Tsui 2004; Reed 2006). In this research they are used to help determine the different ways participants can experience dramatic engagement. Contrast draws on the participants’ understanding of a phenomenon by analysing their experience of something else to compare it with. Generalisation, as a phenomenographic tool, captures how participants experience the varying appearance of an object. Separation refers to when participants experience a certain aspect of something by means of varying it while other aspects remain invariant. Fusion is when the experience for participants is explored in several critical aspects of the phenomenon simultaneously (Åkerlind 2005). These concepts informed the questions used in the video recall to explore the students’ experiences of dramatic engagement.