Protección del motor y tipos de encendido 1 Protección del motor

learning?  

• How  do  these  teachers  navigate  tensions  that  arise?  

3.2 Qualitative research

3.2.1 Drama education research 3.2.2 Case study

3.2.3 The collective case study – participant selection 3.2.4 Ethical research practice

3.2.5 The role of the researcher  

The nature of knowledge

There  are  no  objective  observations,  only  observations  socially  situated   in  the  world  of  the  observer  and  the  observed.  (Denzin  &  Lincoln,  1994,   p.  12)  

In   order   to   capture   something   of   the   complex   nature   of   teaching   practice,   this   study   employs   an   interpretivist   theoretical   perspective   within   a   qualitative   research   domain.   A   positivist   paradigm   holds   that   objective   truth   is   ‘out   there’,   meaningfully   existing   independently   from   observers,   and   thus   is   able   to   be   measured,   quantified   and   replicated.     In   contrast,   the   interpretive   paradigm   is   informed   by   constructionism,   an   epistemology   that   holds   that   ‘reality’   is   a   set   of   socially  constructed,  culturally  transmitted  meanings.    In  other  words,  there  is  no   meaning  without  humans  making  it  (Crotty,  1998).  

Given   the   socially-­‐constructed   and   contextually-­‐dependant   nature   of   knowledge,   qualitative   research   does   not   present   evidence   for   objective   truths,   rather   it   acknowledges   that   ‘knowledge’   and   meanings   are   constructed,   influenced   by   a   particular  time  and  space  and  by  researchers  and  participants  who  bring  their  own   preconceptions,   meanings   and   lived   experience   to   the   inquiry   process.   Multiple   perspectives   on   events   are   therefore   both   possible   and   potentially   valid.     Quantitative  methods  are  often  concerned  with  isolating  variables  and  establishing  

‘facts’  –  and  therefore  were  not  deemed  to  be  as  useful  in  gathering  evidence  of  the   complexities  of  enacted  drama  practice.    Given  the  complex  nature  of  teaching  and   the   dynamic   nature   of   the   classroom,   qualitative   research   methodologies   offered   the  means  to  document  something  of  this  complexity.    Thus  theory  arises  from  the   ‘thick   description’   of   the   phenomenon   being   studied   (Geertz,   1973).     Denzin   (1989)  defines  this  as    

…   description   that   goes   beyond   the   mere   or   bare   reporting   of   an   act   (thin   description),   but   describes   and   probes   the   intentions,   motives,   meanings,  contexts,  situations  and  circumstances  of  action.  (p.  39)  

3.2.1 Drama education research

The  purpose  of  this  research  is  to  investigate  the  way  in  which  drama  teachers  in   New   Zealand   are   implementing   drama   education   in   classrooms   in   the   current   policy   environment.     Drama   education   is   now   widely   taught   in   New   Zealand   schools.     Teachers   undertake   drama   practice,   deliver   curriculum   and   assess   learning.     There   is   both   an   artistic   and   educative   learning   process   happening,   which   involves   shifting   power   relationships   between   teacher   and   student   and   between  students  themselves.  

In   documenting   the   practice   of   drama   education,   research   literature   has   often   focused   on   the   work   of   specific   practitioners   and   emphasised   the   connections   between   their   unique   histories   and   their   drama   teaching.     The   work   of   these   theorists   and   practitioners   (such   as   Dorothy   Heathcote,   Jonothan   Neelands,   and   Phillip   Taylor)   has   contributed   to   the   ways   in   which   drama   education   is   conceptualised   at   theoretical/curriculum   levels   and,   accordingly,   to   the   way   it   commonly  has  been  operationalised  in  classroom  settings.  Drama  education  is  also   informed  by  the  work  of  theatre  practitioners  such  as  Peter  Brook,  Augusto  Boal,   and  Bertolt  Brecht,  who  explore  the  aesthetic  and  dialogic  opportunities  between   theatrical  art  and  the  audience.      

Each   of   these   practitioners   has   a   different   aesthetic,   a   different   process   and   intention   for   the   kind   of   experience   they   hope   to   provide.   Jonothan   Neelands   emphasises   bringing   theatre   processes   and   products   in   the   classroom   to   serve  

educational  and  democratic  ends  (O'Connor,  2010);  Heathcote’s  work  emphasises   an   open-­‐ended   process,   the   empowerment   of   student   ideas   and   curiosities,   and   use  of  drama  as  pedagogy  for  learning  across  (and  beyond)  the  curriculum.  There   is   a   strong   emphasis   on   the   social   construction   of   meanings   through   action   and   shared  reflection  on  action  (Heathcote,  1984).    Given  that  the  work  of  individuals   within  the  drama  education  field  has  been  influenced  by  an  array  of  theorists  and   artistic   processes,   the   methods   chosen   needed   to   be   sensitive   to   potential   variations   in   intention   and   artistic-­‐aesthetic   process.     The   chosen   methods   also   need   to   provide   evidence   for   ‘thick   description’   of   drama   teaching   and   learning,   and  of  the  context  in  which  this  occurs.    

3.2.2 Case study

Case  study  is  a  fitting  choice  to  investigate  the  field  of  drama  teaching  because  it   allows  for  rich  description  of  individual  drama  teaching  practice  and  the  bounded   context  in  which  this  practice  occurs.  Qualitative  inquiry  recognises  that  real-­‐life   phenomena  are  contextually  bound  and  does  not  attempt  to  discard  this  influence   (Stake,   2003).   In   order   to   capture   the   complexity   of   a   case,   evidence   is   gathered   using  multiple  methods  to  create  a  holistic  view  of  the  phenomenon,  rather  than   deconstructing  it  (Yin,  2003).      

Given   that   the   focus   of   the   study   concerns   practice   of   drama   teachers   in   New   Zealand,  a  single-­‐case  design  was  considered  insufficient.  Although  researchers  in   case   study   may   generalise,   “the   purpose   of   a   case   report   is   not   to   represent   the   world,  but  to  represent  the  case”  (Stake,  2003,  p.  156).    Despite  a  shared  national   curriculum  and  assessment  framework  for  drama  in  New  Zealand,  the  practice  of   individual   teachers   varies.     Variance   may   occur   according   to   the   school   environment,  the  programmes  of  study  developed  in  specific  schools,  the  teacher’s   personality,  background,  experience,  and  the  philosophical  positions  they  hold  in   drama   education.   This   study   attempts   to   describe   and   contextualise   variance   in   practice   with   the   intention   of   providing   rich   description   of   the   field.   In   order   to   provide   richness   and   variety   of   description   of   drama   education   in   New   Zealand   classrooms,   multiple   cases   were   investigated   and   presented,   thus   allowing   a   developing   picture   of   ‘the   world’   of   New   Zealand   drama   education   practice   to  

emerge.    Stake  refers  to  this  as  “collective  case  study”  (2003,  p.  156).  In  this  way,   knowledge   grows   as   holistic   images   of   drama   practice   are   juxtaposed   with   one   another,  allowing  certain  resonances  and  patterns  to  emerge.    

3.2.3 The collective case study – participant selection

This  collective  case  study  consists  of  the  work  of  six  experienced  drama  teachers  –   in  effect,  six  nested  cases  forming  a  collective  case.    Because  the  study  aims  to  get   at  the  impact  of  the  recent  curriculum  and  assessment  developments  in  the  New   Zealand   context,   it   is   important   that   these   participants   have   been   practicing   teachers   prior   to   these   policy   developments.     Each   participant   is   a   member   of   Drama  New  Zealand,  the  national  subject  association  for  Drama  Education,  and  has   taken  professional  leadership  roles  within  this  context.    Each  is  the  Head  of  Drama   in  their  school  and  has  gained  peer  esteem  in  their  field.    This  peer  esteem  is  due  to   aspects   such   as   their   experience   in   theatre,   in   teaching   and   learning,   their   professional   knowledge,   artistic   achievement   and   student   achievement.   In   the   absence  of  any  objective  measure  of  ability  in  drama  teaching,  characteristics  such   as  peer  esteem,  middle  management  status  in  schools,  professional  leadership,  and   years   of   teaching   experience   provide   a   means   to   identify   participants   who   are   established  in  this  field.  

In  order  to  capture  a  range  of  drama  teaching  practice,  the  teachers  selected  have   varied   interests   and   strengths   within   the   field   of   drama   education,   come   from   a   variety   of   school   settings,   and   are   willing   to   engage   in   the   research   within   the   given   timeframe.     I   found   five   teachers   working   at   secondary   level   and   one   working  at  primary  level  who  were  willing  to  participate.  Although  I  approached   two   other   drama   specialists   working   at   the   primary   school   level,   I   did   not   hear   back  from  them.    Because  of  the  rich  practice  I  saw  in  the  work  of  the  one  primary   teacher   who   did   reply,   I   chose   to   include   the   case   despite   the   imbalance.   The   difficulty   obtaining   drama   specialists   at   primary   level   reflects   the   fact   that   there   are   fewer   teachers   specialising   in   drama   at   this   level   and   fewer   numbers   participating  in  professional  networks.    The  final  decision  to  focus  on  six  cases  was   made   to   allow   both   depth   and   breadth   of   practice   to   be   investigated,   while   ensuring  the  scope  of  the  study  met  the  requirements  of  doctoral  research.    

3.2.4 Ethical research practice

Approval   to   undertake   the   research   was   obtained   from   the   University   of   Canterbury  Human  Ethics  Committee  in  2008.    In  line  with  requirements  from  the   institution   and   the   objectives   of   the   research,   the   ethical   issues   arising   from   the   research  design  were  addressed  as  follows.  

Potential   participants   were   initially   approached   via   email   to   gauge   interest,   and   once  they  had  indicated  they  were  interested  to  know  more,  I  sent  an  information   sheet   regarding   the   study   (see   Appendices).   This   information   sheet   outlined   the   nature  of  the  study,  participant  involvement  and  the  rights  of  participants.    They   were  informed  they  could  withdraw  at  any  time  prior  to  data  analysis  and  could   pass   on   any   question   they   did   not   care   to   answer   during   interviews.   Once   the   teacher   had   given   informed   consent   to   participate,   information   about   the   study   was  provided  to  each  school  principal,  and  permission  to  proceed  was  gained.  

Information   sheets   were   then   distributed   to   every   student   who   attended   the   particular  drama  class  during  the  teacher  observation  and  to  those  students  who   were  willing  to  speak  to  the  researcher  after  class.    Permission  was  obtained  from   each   student   and,   in   one   instance,   permission   from   the   parents/caregivers   of   students  was  also  obtained  (where  students  were  under  13  years  old).    Video  and   audio   recordings   were   obtained   during   the   teaching   episode   and   interviews   and   participants  were  informed  that  all  data  would  be  destroyed  at  the  conclusion  of   the  research  period.  

Students   who   participated   in   the   group   interviews   were   informed   that   their   opinions  would  be  kept  confidential  in  the  thesis  through  the  use  of  pseudonyms.     They   were   also   assured   that   media   recordings   of   classroom   work   or   interviews   would   not   be   included   in   any   presentation   of   the   research   without   further   permission  being  sought.  

While  the  teacher  participants  gave  permission  for  their  real  names  to  be  used  in   the   research,   I   decided   to   employ   pseudonyms   to   protect   individuals   (and   their   schools)   from   any   unforeseen   harm   resulting   from   the   dissemination   of   the   research.    

There  were  a  number  of  consultation  points  in  the  research  process  after  the  initial   data  collection  period  in  order  to  ensure  I  hadn’t  fallen  into  developing  narratives   from   my   own   world   view   or   distorted   explanations   of   participants’   experience   (Bourdieu,   1996).   Participants   were   sent   a   copy   of   their   verbatim   transcript   and   invited   to   add,   delete   or   clarify   their   responses,   so   that   the   document   reflected   their   views   as   closely   as   possible.   Several   participants   did   minor   edits   to   these   documents  to  clarify  their  ideas.  Participants  were  later  sent  a  ‘Case  Summary’  of   their   individual   case.     This   narrative   summary   drew   together   findings   from   the   interview,   teacher   observation,   document   analysis,   and   student   interviews,   providing  a  more  coherent  narrative  of  their  teaching  practice.    Again,  participants   were   invited   to   confirm   that   this   narrative   was   a   fair   and   appropriate   record   of   their  views  and  practice,  and  to  make  any  changes  they  deemed  important.      

3.2.5 The role of the researcher

In  Lave  and  Wenger’s  terms,  I  am  a  member  of  the  drama  education  ‘community  of   practice’   (Lave   &   Wenger,   1991).     As   a   drama   educator   and   former   classroom   drama  teacher  myself,  I  had  the  advantage  of  knowing  the  conventions  of  drama   education,   including   the   central   concepts,   processes   and   policy   structures   participants   were   grappling   with.   I   am   also   a   member   of   the   professional   drama   education   community,   Drama   New   Zealand,   where   I   had   met   most   participants   before  and  had  gained  some  insight  into  their  work  in  schools.    Furthermore,  as  a   teacher  educator,  I  had  an  understanding  of  the  competing  agendas  arising  from   government,   school,   and   parent   communities   facing   the   classroom   teacher.   It   is   important   to   note   that   this   research   looks   to   document   the   practice   of   drama   education  rather  than  to  critique  or  evaluate  the  work  of  participants.  I  positioned   myself  as  a  curious  colleague  rather  than  an  expert,  a  stance  intended  to  encourage   authenticity   and   openness   in   reflection   and   subsequent   reporting   of   practice   by   participants  (Glesne,  2006,  p.  94).    

As   mentioned   above,   I   took   care   throughout   the   data   collection   process   and   analysis   to   share   my   developing   conceptualisations   of   each   case   with   the   participant   concerned   –   in   order   to   ensure   my   interpretations   of   their   practice   were   consistent   with   their   own   understandings.   Qualitative   research   makes   no  

assumption   that   the   researcher/observer   can   be   neutral   or   that   the   accounts   of   practice  emerging  could  be  free  from  the  interpretive  influence  of  the  researcher   (Bourdieu,  1996).    Therefore  the  description  of  practice  occurring  in  the  field  relies   on   the   co-­‐constructed   understandings   (interpretations)   of   the   researcher   and   participants.