The school chosen for this study was the school in which I have been teaching since 2007. The school was an average-sized secondary school in England of 900 students, almost all students were from White British backgrounds, the proportion of students who speak English as an additional language was well below average, and the proportion of disadvantaged students, disabled students and those with special educational needs was below average.
The participants chosen for this study were teachers in the English department of the school in which I was teaching while the research was taking place. The selection of the sample was
purposive, although it should be acknowledged that there was an element of selecting participants simply because of their ready availability and convenience – this was the school in which I was working. In purposive sampling, the participants are hand-picked on the basis of a judgement of their typicality or possession of the particular characteristics being sought (Cohen et al., 2011). This sample was chosen in order to access those with knowledge of teaching literature, by virtue of their professional role (Ball, 1990). There would have been little benefit in seeking a random sample across the school, thus a purposive sample was vital. Though they may not be representable and
63
their comments not generalisable, the concern was more to gain in-depth information from those in a position to give it.
As a consequence of this necessity, consideration was made of the experience of the teachers invited to participate. In particular, only teachers who were currently teaching the reformed GCSE English literature specification were invited to participate, as opposed to those who were only teaching KS3 English. This was because the expectation of accountability and the awareness of the specification itself was very specific to those teaching GCSE, and that unless it formed a part of a teacher’s context, then their experiences, for the purposes of this study, were not the most relevant. Participants were chosen in order to yield the most relevant and plentiful data so that I could ‘obtain the broadest range of information and perspectives on the subject of study’ (Kuzul, 1992, p.37).
It was important to understand that unnecessary workload is a ‘huge problem in teaching’, with a suggested 82% of teachers describing their workload as ‘unmanageable’ (Niemtus, 2016) due, in part, to the contribution of unnecessary and unproductive tasks (DfE, 2015, p.6). This factor was significant because it informed how the participants were approached. It was clearly emphasised that participation would not be an unnecessary burden to the general workload and was entirely voluntary. The consent of participants needed to be properly informed and freely given; ‘voluntary informed consent’ is defined as the condition in which participants ‘understand and agree to their participation without any duress’ and in that they understand the process, why their participation is necessary, how it will be used and how and to whom it will be reported (BERA, 2011, p.5). Initially, consent was gained through meeting with the head teacher, the (then) head of department and the participants individually, explaining the research, the risks and the benefits, and answering any questions that they may have had. The head teacher and participants were then given an information sheet (see Appendix 2 Head Teacher Information Sheet) and consent form (see
Appendix 3 Head Teacher Consent Form) to consider and return. Permission for the research to take place was gained from the head teacher and then the head of department. Throughout the research, the research supervisor and the head teacher were kept updated on the research taking place. The right to withdraw was detailed in the paperwork and reiterated at the beginning of the all data collection points.
64
Ultimately, of the eight teachers approached, six agreed to participate (Figure 3.2).
Name Current role(s)
Lucy Assistant Head Teacher and Teacher of English Silvia Second in English
Celia Second in English
Lena Literacy Coordinator and Teacher of English Bea Teacher of English
Cassandra Teacher of English
Figure 3. 2 Background information about participants
It was important to recognise participants’ entitlement to privacy and it was necessary to accord them their rights to confidentiality and anonymity, unless that right is specifically waived (BERA, 2011). Confidentiality was maintained through changing identifying details of the school and the participants, keeping data secure and ensuring participants knew how and why their personal data was being stored, to what uses it was being put and to whom it may be available. Participants were given the opportunity to verify statements at the stage of drafting, to allow for participation validation. Anonymity was ensured through pseudonyms, unless participants wanted to be acknowledged.
The participants who volunteered for the study represented six of the eight full time GCSE English literature teachers in the department, not including myself. There was only one male teacher in the department but he chose not to participate and so the sample is female, something that could not be avoided in this case. The age of the sample was fairly even with four of the six participants between the ages of 30 and 39 and, as a consequence, a similar number of years’ teaching experience.
It is acknowledged that there were potential weaknesses in the sampling method used and that the results are not necessarily generalizable to the wider population. However, this sample was not intended to be generalised and thus this issue was viewed as ‘unimportant’ (Schofield, 1990, p.202). Even then, ‘when we give proper weight to local conditions, any generalisation is a working
hypothesis, not a conclusion’ (Merriam, 1998, p.209). Instead, this study sought a thorough exploration of the phenomena in a carefully described context that would be of interest to others conducting similar research (Chalhoub-Deville et al, 2006). It was not the intention of this small scale qualitative research to ‘find universal truths but simply to get sound information and understanding
65
of their local context’ (Drever, 1995, p.33) in the hope of informing future practice as well as contributing to the theoretical understanding of this area.