Transfección y screening celular

Data collected from participating instructors proved a rich source of information that captured attitudes, assumptions and responses to change throughout the research. McNiff and Whitehead (2011) suggest that it is “questionable whether you actually can monitor and gather data about other people’s learning or whether you can simply make tentative judgements about the quality of their learning through what they say and do” (p. 152). Therefore, continued discussion of instructors’ reflections was central to understanding the impact of the research on their teaching and learning. Furthermore, McKernan (1996) warned that as teachers are “somewhat overworked, it is a little bit idealistic to suppose that they will be able to mount systematic collaborative action research projects in the face of constraints, such as a lack of time, [and] lack of research methodology skills” (p. 235). Participating instructors fitted this description, and were unwilling to keep detailed written reflective journals. Therefore, data was collected from recorded conversation, and via e-mail journals requested at various intervals throughout the research process. Details on data collection methods used with the participating instructors are outlined in sections 4.8.3.1 to 4.8.3.5.

4.8.3.1 Initial BEP instructor interviews (IIN)

In Semester 1, 2010, prior to Cycle One, semi-structured interviews with all BEP instructors were conducted to gain an understanding of existing IL needs and development within the programme. These ‘purposive conversations’ (Lodico et al., 2010) offered insights into what the instructors were currently teaching and assessing, and identified where and how IL development could take place within individual courses and the programme as a whole (see Appendix 4a for an example of interview questions). From the interviews, the participating instructors were identified as teaching courses which could support explicit IL development within the curriculum. Key themes emerging from these interviews are discussed in Chapter Five.

4.8.3.2 Conversation

In action research, there is an underlying assumption that conversation leads to enhanced insights and change (Feldman, 1999; McKernan, 1996; McNiff, 2002; McNiff & Whitehead, 2011). Feldman (1999) promotes the role of conversation in collaborative action research as a valid research method because the knowledge-sharing and meaning-making processes gained through conversation support deeper understanding. By entering into action research, each participant is engaged in research, which means the conversations that take place are directed and meaningful. Thus, deliberative conversation can be seen as a process of ‘oral inquiry’ which goes beyond ‘teacher talk’ because it involves building insights from the examination of education concepts, student work and problem solving, and captures the ways teachers relate theory to practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle 1993, as cited in Feldman, 1997). McKernan (1996) states that “since action research has discourse at its core and since discussion, rather than the written word, is the chief means of communicating throughout life, it is thus a very potent tool” (p. 166). Conversations that can count as research are those which facilitate communication and consensus, exchange information, and share understanding (Feldman, 1999).

In this research, conversations with participating instructors on how IL instruction was taking place (or was perceived to be taking place) helped guide the plan of action to make this instruction more explicit. They helped identify ways instructors could amend their pedagogy or assessment towards learner- focused pedagogies. Through conversation and observation, problems identified by instructors provided opportunities for further investigation. As mentioned previously, it was up to each instructor whether they chose to adapt their teaching in response to the conversations and reflection taking place during the iterative cycles of action research. If the instructor chose to trial a new way of teaching or assessing a certain aspect of the curriculum, in-depth discussion of the outcomes helped determine if the intervention had been successful.

4.8.3.3 Meeting notes (IMN)

During the research process, the conversations with participating instructors took place in the form of formal or informal meetings. The formal meetings were scheduled at the beginning and end of each semester to discuss the planning and implementation of specific interventions. These meetings were recorded and transcribed. Summaries of significant points from the transcripts were then e-mailed or discussed at follow-up meetings, and instructors had the opportunity to verify or clarify points made and add further insights.

The informal meetings, which often took the form of a catch-up chat over coffee, were not recorded, but either notes were taken, or I wrote a reflective journal entry soon after. This is similar to what Mills (2007) calls an ‘information ethnographic interview’, where instructors engage in casual conversation to explore an idea or learning opportunity emerging from their practice. Key points taken during or after the meetings were discussed with the participants, and were used to identify any actions needed following the meeting.

4.8.3.4 Instructor Reflective feedback (IRF)

Engaging in regular reflection and using it to understand the process of change is an important aspect of PAR. Johns (2013) describes reflection as “a learning journey of becoming a reflective practitioner, someone who is reflective moment to moment. It is learning through everyday experiences towards realising one’s vision of desirable practice as lived reality (p.1). On-going reflection throughout this research process enabled both the instructors and I to identify where change was needed, explore various ways to approach the interventions, and recognise where change had occurred and consider the implications of this change. Johns (2013) and Argyris and Schön (1989) advocate reflection before, during (reflection-in-action), and after (reflection-on-action) any interventions to ensure that doing reflection leads to becoming a reflective practitioner.

As mentioned above (see 4.8.3), the instructors involved in this research expressed a preference not to keep a regular written journal. Instead, they provided written feedback via e-mail on the various interventions that were taking place. Mills (2007) suggests that on-going conversations via e-mail may

be preferable to busy participants as they may not have time for numerous face- to-face interactions and can reply with their responses in their own time. Most reflective feedback was prompted by an e-mail from me requesting reflection on certain interventions. The reflections were then followed up and extended during regular face-to-face meetings throughout each cycle.

4.8.3.5 Observations

My role in this research included observing without interacting directly in the classroom. Observation allowed me to collect information by reviewing teaching styles and students’ responses (actions and behaviours) to interventions as they were happening in the classroom (McClure, 2002; Mills, 2007). Class observations were conducted when the new interventions were being introduced, when formative activities or workshops were being conducted, and when feedback on assessments was being given. The classes to be observed were scheduled with the instructors at the start of the semester. During the observations, I took notes and then wrote up more in-depth reflections in my journal. Observation notes were discussed with the instructors at follow-up meetings.