Un recorrido por las propuestas curriculares de Association for Computing

During the initial stages of research design, I carefully reflected on my role in the fieldwork events because the validity and generalizability of the research would be affected by my interactions and insights throughout the process (Figueroa 2000:100). I felt that my background as a teacher had given me a deeper appreciation of the general school system (knowledge that could be useful to the research process), but as a researcher, the expected practices associated with my current profession needed recognition and adherence.

I thus began by considering those factors that affected my position as an educational researcher. Discipline and Punish (1991) was useful here because Foucault suggested that the environment and context all contributed to the discourses and behavioural parameters of those involved in any interaction (in this case the researcher and participants). For example, the researcher necessarily responds to the school regulations and to the power held by the members of staff involved in the research process; dynamics that also guide and affect the participants’ actions and discourses. The strength of these power-dynamics could also impact the scope of information relayed by either party, as well as the style of delivery. Thus my interactions with participants were affected by context and I had to be responsive to the requirements found in each case

study. As Hitchcock and Hughes noted, “schools are organisations which have a power structure. Knowledge is not equally distributed but is socially constructed” (Hitchcock and Hughes 2001:39). Recognising and acknowledging how the school system as a whole, and the internal dynamics of each school, impacted on the researcher, helped provide a deeper understanding of the research parameters and in recognising the challenges of generalizability between case studies.

However, the power-dynamics involved in education research can alter because there are moments when it becomes more of a dialogical process, “where participants negotiate meanings at the level of question posing, data collection and analysis” (Gitlin and Russell 1994:185). Since I (the author) was in the process of discovering new information, the research became a “mutual process” (Gitlin and Russell 1994:187) between the researcher and the researched because both parties were engaged in a previously unresearched field of study. Due to the exploratory nature of this research and the style of my research questions, I felt that these moments needed to be encouraged: I wanted to discover pupils' perceptions and engaging them with the knowledge they produced could provide deeper insights into their understanding of terrorism.

Another influential consideration was ensuring that I responded adequately to the sensitivities associated with the topic. To this end, I investigated alternative studies on discussing sensitive issues with pupils. For example, Symonds suggested that pupils should become more actively involved in the research and that the researcher’s role should demonstrate “both a professional and a ‘civic’ interest in facilitating positive, developmentally appropriate experiences for early adolescent participants… [thus] a

balance must be struck between allowing pupils autonomy and scaffolding their cognition” (Symonds 2008:71: also see Hatch 1995). Another study by Tsai, which involved discussing trauma during classroom-based research, involved interaction, discussion and written reflections in a classroom setting (Tsai 2010:120): an approach inspired by her teaching and researcher experience.

When reflecting on these considerations, I realised that certain teaching methods could similarly be used in my research, to scaffold moments where pupils could conduct autonomous exploration of the topic. For example, certain approaches, such as group work or classroom discussions, provided space and time for pupils' to discuss and reflect on their knowledge and thus could be used to encourage information discovery (particularly if the topic is one that may not have been previously discussed in school). As Hopkins stated, a teacher acts as “more advisor and guide than a director” (Hopkins 2011:171) during group work; thus such activities encourage pupils to discuss their ideas in a reflective manner that provide deeper insights into their perceptions. However, to ensure such interactions were productive, teaching skills could be required: some pupils may not have developed the social skills required for such discussions, thus there could be moments where I needed to encourage them to focus on the task.

When I speculated further on how to incorporate this approach into data collection events, I realised that my teaching knowledge and training could consciously and sub- consciously affect the entire research process. Even if I chose alternative methods, some of my teaching skills have become so engrained into my interactions with young people that any attempt to “bracket out” this knowledge would be impossible. Thus, for validity and reliability purposes, I concluded that the best approach would be to embrace and

incorporate my teaching knowledge into my research design. Although this was a complex idea that required a great deal of thought and planning, I believed that using my skills would ultimately be beneficial to the research process. The sensitive nature of the topic and the style of my research questions meant that the research design had to use methods that would encourage pupils to participate and express their views and I believed that my teaching knowledge could be used to benefit my research aims.

According to Hopkins, the problems with traditional educational research is that it is difficult to apply to classroom practice: the researcher brings in perspectives from academic discipline world-view that differ to the teacher's view (Hopkins 2011:40-41). Therefore, there has been an increase in research being conducted by “teacher- researchers”. However, this approach follows the action research paradigm, where research is conducted over a longer time frame by a classroom teacher, with the aim of achieving change in schools (Townsend 2013). In my opinion, this type of research preferences the “teacher” role above the “researcher” because it is undertaken by a teacher using research methods and skills to scaffold the project. However, this did not suit my project: I intended to explore and discover perceptions of terrorism, rather than explicitly alter classroom or school approaches to terrorism. Therefore, a better categorisation for my role was the “researcher-teacher”: I preferenced the “researcher” role, but was using my teaching knowledge, skills and methods to help my research design because such skills were considered useful in providing approaches to discussing sensitive issues with young people.

Hopkins suggested that the teaching skills useful for research include: not judging participants too quickly; having inter-personal skills; developing trust and

supportiveness; and having a design schedule that helps you gather the appropriate information (Hopkins 2011:77). He also suggested that the interactions to be reflected on could include: their presentation; the indirect and direct teaching; tone of voice; questioning strategy; how they provide feedback; the nature of their discussion about the subject matter and expectations; the classroom layout; and how they used differentiation (Hopkins 2011:87). Having chosen to conduct my research within the school environment, it seemed logical that these aspects of my interactions with pupils should be reflected upon as part of the research design.

My teaching experience also provided me with insights into how pupils interacted with visitors, albeit as an observer rather than instigator. I noticed that the pupils I taught felt most relaxed when visitors conducted a session on the pupils' terms (in a classroom) as opposed to an outside space (such as a place of worship): particularly when it was structured with lesson-style activities that they could relate to. Due to the sensitivities and ethical considerations associated with discussing terrorism with young people, I used this knowledge of visitor-pupil interactions to my advantage. Thus, my first session with pupils emulated the style of the “good” visitor that combined the typical components of a lesson with my research requirements. As I will discuss further in my research design (Chapter 4.3), this involved a clear research session conducted with a lesson plan, with specific activities and contingency planning, that could be replicable in every case study (which also fulfilled the requirements of good CSR). The main drawbacks of this teacher identity included those conscious and subconscious actions that could have restricted the pupils' willingness to openly discuss their views. Therefore, I triangulated the data collected by conducting a second session that followed the more typical research method of semi-structured group discussions.