Temperaturas de ruido de fondo y de brillo

As its name suggests, Action Research concerns actors and their actions within the research process. It is about researching with people to” create and study change in and through their process” (MacNaughton 2001, p.208). Carr and Kemmis (1986) describe action research as being about:

 The improvement of practice;

 The improvement of the understanding of practice;

 The improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place.

This requires groups of participants to share individual research findings and question actions and purposes, whilst at the same time become critical as to why things are happening and how they happened, in order to drive the Action Research forward.

“Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situation in which these practices are carried out” (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988, p.5).

The emphasis of Action Research, within this research, is that it is based on the study of a social situation with a view to improve the quality of action within it (Elliot 1991, p.69) and is concerned with developing practices in those settings. In this respect Action Research is seen as being an

92

interventionist approach to achieving change, and one which is based around the experiences of actors in particular settings, which is participatory in aspiration.

The origins of Action Research are attributed to a range of different sources but Kurt Lewin is often identified as being the pioneer of this approach (Adleman 1993; Hopkins 1993). Developed by Stephen Kemmis, Action Research is a model of a cyclical nature that includes four steps of planning, acting, observing and reflecting.

“[Action research is]…composed of a circle of planning, executing, and reconnaissance or fact finding for the purpose of evaluating the results of the second step, and preparing the rational basis for planning the third step, and for perhaps modifying again the overall plan” (Lewin 1946, p.38)

The first step of planning is considered more of a fact finding and analysis stage which enables action planning and a decision about the actions to be taken. These are then taken, and the action is evaluated (usually generated in cycle 1). Subsequent cycles then involve further planning, taking into account previous evaluations, planning further actions, taking these actions and evaluating (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2007).

Action Research Cycles and Spirals Diagram:

Source: State of New South Wales, Department of Education and Training

Figure 5 - Action Research Cycles and Spiral Diagram

At its heart, Action Research involves the careful monitoring of planned changes in practice through a collaborative manner, and therefore, a decision to take an action may either yield improvements or provide information to direct or change the nature of the teaching situation (Whitehead 1985).

“The action is thus used as a research tool. Both elements of action and research are of equal prominence in the approach. It can be thought of as:

93

research on action

by using

action as a tool for research”

(Waters-Adams 2006, p.1)

Although Action Research shares a number of perspectives with the interpretive paradigm, and makes considerable use of its qualitative methodologies, particularly in educational research, there are some researchers who feel that it takes neither the interpretive or positivist distinction and can go one way or another (Lather 1986; Morley 1991). However, “mostly though, in accordance with its principles, it is chosen when circumstances require flexibility, the involvement of the people in the research, or that change must take place quickly or holistically” (O’Brien 1998, p.1)’. By taking a focus on the processes of interactions between the teacher, participants and the children in this research, Action Research Methods adopted a qualitative stance and has a vested interest in the meanings, perspectives and understanding about how and why things are done the way they are. Action Research was conducted in both the pre-pilot and pilot stages of this research. The main purpose of adopting Action Research in the two early stages of pre-pilot and pilot studies was to emphasise the purpose of this research, so as to gather information that is confirming, if not conclusive, and then to work alongside early childhood practitioners, in a collaborative experience, to provide for further understanding, and make changes. The following is outlined below.

6.1.1. Action Research Pre-Pilots

The pre-pilot study was used as a small scale version and trial run, to validate the literature gap in this study. Based on the literature evidence which shows that there is limited knowledge of what constitutes appropriate pedagogy whilst using technology with young children, the pre-pilot served as a pre-testing or ‘investigation tool’ in determining if this is still true. As a prelude to the start of the main research, a phone call interview was conducted with a random selection of thirty

preschools based in the UK, each following the Early Years Foundation Stage Framework (EYFS). The preschools interviewed were not regionally defined, but served a basis for the beginnings of this study.

The responses from the pre-pilot phone interviews showed that practitioners believe they have a responsibility to encourage the balanced uses of technologies for the best interests of their children within their classrooms, yet it would seem that the majority of practitioners (28/30) still have a general lack of pedagogic understanding while using some of the new forms of technology in their settings. One of the advantages in conducting the pre-pilot study was that it provided a conceptual understanding of the role of technology in preschool education and showed the apparent widening gap between that of technology and pedagogy in the classroom settings. This was particularly important for this research, as much of the literature evidence was relatively dated and the responses from the practitioners worked as evidence in highlighting the need to progress with research in this area.

Much too often, there is the argument that pilot studies are likely to be ‘underdiscussed, underused and underreported’ (Prescott and Soeken 1989, p.60) but within the context of this research, the pre-pilot study was dominantly used to scope the research project. In the words of De Vaus “Do

94

not take the risk. Pilot test first” (cited in Teijlingen and Hundley 2001, p.1). The pre-pilot study was based on the four steps of Action Research: planning (planning the telephone calls), acting (doing the telephone interviews), observing (noting the common theme or occurrences) and

reflecting (using the data to identify the research gap and informing the design of the next cycle(s)). Each interview included a review session soon after the interview was terminated. This, in itself, constituted an Action Research cycle.

The pre-pilots adopted the use of a non-standardardized, semi-structured, open-ended qualitative interview questions in the research design. Conducting interviews was a good way to collect data as well as to gain knowledge from the individuals, where both the interviewer and the participants were able to talk about their views in addition to discussing and interpreting their perceptions of the questions. In this way, the interviews adopted an interpretivist position and regarded the pre-pilots as “an interchange of views between participants...and emphasised the social situated(ness) of the research data (Kvale 1996, p.14).

Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007, p.267) explains:

“ … the interview is not simply concerned with collecting data about life: it is part of life itself, its human embeddedness is inescapable” (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2000, p.267).

The pre-pilot study took the form of interpretative data analysis, seeking for opinions and establishing common responses by the early years practitioners. The telephone interview data included a combination of note taking and audio-recording. The results from the pre-pilots confirmed the hunch, as predicted prior to the commencement of the research. Although much of the literature research is dated for this thesis, the pre-pilots confirmed the lack of knowledge in this area of learning with new technology and highlighted a growing need for research investigation. This reflection of experience, supported by the existing literature evidence, helped formulate the formation of the next stage of analysis and investigation (Kolb 1984).

The results from the pre-pilots informed the next cycle in Action Research which demonstrated that there is an apparent gap in knowledge of what constitutes appropriate pedagogy, when using technology with young children, in early years settings. In the pilot study, more importance was dedicated to work closely with the practitioners in collecting data of their current situation and making sense of the information; even modifying the line of inquiry in response to developing understandings (Appendix 10, p. 212).

6.1.2. Action Research Pilots

The pilot stage continued with Action Research Methodology and was used in three further

preschool settings. Following a similar format to that of the pre-pilots, the pilot stage consisted and emphasised the iterative nature of the process of planning (planning the process with the

preschools practitioners), acting (implementing the changes), observing (understanding the implications of the changes), and reflecting (using the data to highlights areas of improvement and/or changes). Within this context, the role of the researcher developed from that of a telephone interviewer to a ‘critical friend’ (Waters-Adams 2006), not in terms of undermining practices or in criticising current approaches, but rather in facilitating a non-hierarchical and collaborative

relationship within the research inquiry processes. As discussed with the practitioners involved, the main role of the researcher, in the pilot study, was to take time to facilitate dialogue and foster

95

reflective analysis among the participants involved through means of discussion groups, reports and periodic updates. This was conducted in the iterative Action Research cycles of inquiry. The Action Research iterative cycles progressed most effectively when the researcher, along with the early years practitioners, critically reflected upon findings, understanding, and practices in the process. Critical reflection can be viewed as the motor force that drives the research process – for when it stalls, the action research stalls (MacNaughton 2001, p.212). During the cyclic phase of reflection, both the researcher and practitioner’s shared individual findings, questioned actions and purposes, whilst at the same time, was critical as to why things are happening, and how they happened, in order to drive the Action Research forward (Carr 2006).

This type of close interaction between the researcher and participants tied in with the Interpretivist epistemological view to establish the need to study the details of the situation, and to understand the reality of the working behind the participants; by studying what the teachers are doing, how they interact with the children, and what they find important in providing for appropriate pedagogy, while using technology in the classroom. The role of the researcher using Action Research in this study, took the role of ‘participant as observer’ (Gill and Johnson 2002) where the researcher actively participated within the research process so as to gain the trust of the group, working alongside the participants, instead of concealing one’s identity (as ‘complete participant’ or ‘complete observer’).

“Participants in an action research project are co-researchers. The principle of collaborative resource presupposes that each person’s ideas are equally

significant as potential resources for creating interpretive categories of analysis, negotiated among the participants” (Winter 1989).

Two prominent types of data collection methods of direct observation and group discussions were used, along with field notes, tape recorders and video recorders which are typical ‘characteristics of the qualitative approach’ (Hachohen & Zimran 1999). The inductive approach of data collection and findings generated by Action Research cycles and spirals of the test pilots was useful in providing for the start of formulation of pedagogy and a development of understanding the nature of the problem within the context of the pre-school environment.

One of the core reasons for using Action Research Methodology within this research was to provide and understanding of the current ways of ‘how’ something is happening and what can be done to better/or improve the learning processes, while children were using the technology. Whilst initial pilot interviews with early years setting managers and/or supervisors suggests that childhood practitioners are already working with an approach of pedagogy, but are looking for further

clarification in how to better progress of learning whilst using the technology, it was soon made clear that this is not always the case. During the early cycles of the research process, it was found that children were often exploring on the computer, with little or no pedagogic direction.

“Children were found clicking on links leading to different programs and would only call on help from an adult if technical assistance was required” (See Appendix 11b and 12b).

The children were found to be playing on the computer and there was evidence to show that ‘there was minimum activity’ or there was ‘very little in process’ of children learning through technology, with the current pedagogic practices applied. Upon further reflection of practitioner involvement, it

96

would seem that the early years practitioners felt that they lacked the appropriate knowledge and confidence in taking the lead for determining more suitable practices of pedagogy. The

practitioners, therefore, requested the researcher to take a more ‘instructor based’ role, initiating ‘questions’, leading ‘the dialogue through the use of software’ and providing for ‘verbal and emotional gestures’ with the children, whilst they as practitioners, would stand nearby to make notes and observe. In making this change, there was a reversal of roles where the early years practitioner took more of an ‘observer role and the researcher adopted the role of a ‘researcher turned facilitator’.

Adopting Zull (2002) and Moon’s (1999) extended reflective practice, from the orgins of Kolb's experiential learning theory (1984), new found knowledge and learning comes from reflection in which there is the concept of having an experience and then reflection on that experience, through means of observations and understanding. Although this may be useful initially, deeper reflection results from the formation of the abstract concepts and in developing new practice to extend it further, by trying out what has been learned and in testing implications of the concepts in new situations.

Source: Moon 1999

Figure 6 – Extended Reflective Practice

In the same way, by reflecting upon the changes that were taking place within the research design, where the researcher adopted the role as the facilitator in pursuing onwards, this brought about a change in finding a suitable method to continue and progress. While this research was originally deemed as an Action Research Project, in which the Action Research Methodology is driven with the “desire to change practices in a collaborative manner with the teachers and people

(practitioners) involved” (MacNaughton 2001, p.210), this was no longer feasible.

The Action Research Methodology helped to highlight the gap in providing an understanding about why and how something happens. The role of the researcher using Action Research is to ‘work alongside a teacher or teachers in a sustained relationship’ (Whitehead, 1986), where the researcher adopts an observer perspective and provides for analytic descriptions and/or reflections of the processes in which the participants are involved. However, as the role of the researcher changed to an active facilitator in leading enquiry and collaboration between the participants, the requirement to continue with Action Research Methodology was no longer possible. By demonstrating the

97

events in which both the researcher and practitioner switched their instructive role, this process aligned itself closely to Piaget’s methods of inquiry. As a result, this research continued with Piaget’s Interview Methods, where the researcher was given the flexibility and permission to function as a facilitator, in preparing and conducting appropriate interviews with the participants in this research.