CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES
Overview and Methodology
This project involves the study of one consultant's role in developing and implementing an interdisciplinary course in Agribusiness and is best described as a qualitative study with an action research component. Because a qualitative study seeks to create a deeper understanding for an individual, this method suits my needs. As a new teacher consultant, it was important for me to develop the knowledge of an insider in the world of teacher leadership, and by working with two specific participants, I was able to gather data that would help my personal professional development.
In action research, "the idea of self reflection is central" (McNiff, 1995, p. 5). Because this study focuses on my development as a teacher consultant, the self reflective aspects of action research seem appropriate. In Action Research for Educational Change (1991), John Elliott explains that action research develops practical understanding through a form of inquiry which acknowledges the realities that face practitioners resisting the temptation to simplify cases by theoretical abstraction (p. 52). Action research allows the development of holistic appreciation of a situation and is based on the premise that practitioners initiate change based on felt need. The teacher is the researcher who determines what problems need attention, engages in developing a plan to change practice, initiates and evaluates plans, and makes modification to practice. The teacher has complete ownership of the research. Action research appears to be the most logical and sensible approach to this project because it allows me to examine and improve my practice as a teacher consultant. I have found that, in this project, action research has helped me to live out the things I believe in and enabled me to give good reasons every step of the way (McNiff, p. 5).
As the teacher consultant, I was involved in regular contact with both teachers and the principal about the development and implementation of the program, and records of my interactions with the teachers, principal, and others associated with the Agribusiness course were all sources of data.
It was my intent to examine the issues facing a teacher consultant involved in facilitating the design, development, and implementation of an interdisciplinary course with two teachers. Ultimately, through the specific situation at this small rural secondary school, the data specifically shed light on the role a curriculum consultant plays in the implementation and development of new IDS courses with strong local focus; more globally, it examines how one teacher consultant can promote collegiality among teachers and administrators in order to establish a collaborative community.
Data Collection
I began working on implementing an IDS course in agribusiness while I was the head of Science at Delhi District Secondary School. In spite of my new position as teacher consultant, I wanted to be involved in the project, so I began to consider action research questions that might be appropriate for me. The purpose of this action research project is my question: "As a Teacher Consultant, how do I facilitate the change related to the design, development, and implementation of a new interdisciplinary course?" In a new role, I wanted to inform my practice. I had been growing more reflective as a teacher and was interested in applying reflection to my work as a consultant. Similarly, I was interested in seeing a course I had conceptualized become reality, and although I was removed from the students and school setting, I felt that as a Teacher Consultant, I could work with the teachers on site to facilitate this new course.
This action research study employed various methods for data collection: formal taped interviews, field notes, conversations, and e-mails with participants; and my daily reflective journal. Of these methods, the journal has provided the clearest insight into my development as a support staff member; the other methods of data collection were especially useful for documenting the actual progress of the course development and my effect on the process of designing and implementing the program.
Throughout the 2 months development and one-semester delivery of the project, I scheduled meetings with the teachers every second week. Most times, I met with each teacher individually, although for one meeting scheduled during a lunch period, all three of us were able to be together. These 30-minute meetings were unstructured. During these meetings, Doug and Rob, the teachers in this study, discussed the progress of the course and their needs. After each meeting, I made a notation in both my field notes and my journal, identifying key discussion points and reflecting on the teachers' comments and process as well as on my interaction in the project.
In addition to regular conversations, taped and transcribed interviews over one semester, a questionnaire and email correspondence with Doug and Rob, I completed a "member check." I sent both teachers a copy of my reports on this project so they could offer input and express their opinions regarding my writing. This validated my observations, findings, and analysis.
Twice over the course of the project, formal taped and transcribed interviews took place (transcribed interview notes, September 22, 1999 and October 21, 1999) in the school's Business Office during each teacher's preparation period; this meant that the teachers participated individually since their preparation periods were different. For each of the taped interviews, I prepared three guiding questions. The questions were openended and allowed the teachers to express their opinions and concerns regarding their understanding of interdisciplinary studies, the progress of the course, and my role in the project. Question One: What are your feelings or perceptions about the progress of the course so far? Question Two: How are you progressing with increasing the level of integration of the courses? Question Three: How can I help you better implement this course?
On January 21, 2000, during the last week of the course, Doug, Rob, and I met for an afternoon. This half-day meeting served as the culminating discussion about the project with the teachers. During this meeting, we created a proposal for Ministry of Education approval of the IDS course in agribusiness as a locally developed course (Appendix C).
I kept a file of all electronic and paper correspondence regarding all aspects of this project, and I also recorded minutes of meetings with outside personnel involved in the development phase of this project.
I wrote a dated journal of field notes documenting formal and informal meetings, events, calls, or other items pertaining to the IDS course development and implementation process. Over the course of the entire project I kept track of my own personal reflections on all of these events in a reflective journal that was organized by date and structured as a narrative based on the impetus of my interactions with the participants and others regarding the IDS course. Finally, as part of the writing process of this project, I asked the teachers to complete a questionnaire to gather information for their profiles and to assess my role in the project (personal communication, June 15, 2002).
Because the intention of this action research is to improve my practice as a teacher consultant, it seems reasonable that such research includes both formative and summative evaluation of my practice. The formative evaluation is evident in my reflective journal; the summative evaluation is presented in this published project. However, it is important to note that despite rigorous formal and informal evaluation, there is no end to action research, rather the formation of new questions and new plans to implement. A summative evaluation for one cycle becomes the beginning point of the second cycle (McNiff et al., 1997, p.107).
Participants
As well as my own self-study, the project included two teachers who would work with me to implement the course: The Head of Business (known in this paper as "Rob") and the newly-appointed Head of Science (known in this paper as "Doug") would work with me to develop, implement, and teach the course of study for this grade 11 course. Through discussion and a questionnaire, I gathered the background stories of Rob and Doug.
Rob graduated from the Richard Ivey School of Business with an Honours Business Administration degree. He has been a secondary school teacher for 22 years in two school locations. Rob grew up in the rural agricultural area his current school serves and is familiar with the current and historical context of agribusiness in the surrounding area. He has taught a wide variety of courses in the Business Department and participated in the project because I asked him to be involved. He is a teacher who is respected and liked by both colleagues and students.
Doug is a teacher with 20 years of classroom experience. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture with a major in Crop Science and has short- and long-term experience in the field of agriculture. He wanted to participate in the project because it offered an opportunity to change schools after 20 years in the same setting and because it was directly related to his formal education and previous work experience. In spite of reticence to accept added responsibility, he accepted the Headship I vacated in order to participate in the project and move to a new school. He is a popular teacher who engages his students and maintains connections with them after they leave secondary school.
The participants were chosen because as Department Heads of Business and Science they had expertise in their subject areas and some flexibility regarding development and timetabling of courses within their departments. This project was conceived in the second semester of the 1998-99 school year and continued through the summer of 1999 as the teachers designed the course. The action research cycle of this project lasted for one secondary school semester, the length of the actual course, and ended in February 2000, after the first semester in which the course was taught.
Analysis
While there are no strict rules for analyzing data, Tesch (1989) reminded us that "qualitative analysis can and should be done artfully, even playfully, but it also requires a great amount of methodological knowledge and intellectual competence" (p. 97). For this study, I followed the procedures for processing and analyzing data as outlined by Taylor and Bogdan (1998), to work through a discovery phase, a coding phase, and a discounting phase. In each phase, I conferred with a critical partner and made notes on my journal and field notes as well as the two teachers' responses to discover themes and categorize generalities.
Qualitative data analysis is an ongoing cyclical process (Schumacher & McMillan, 1993) which began with my first thoughts about my project. For this qualitative study, I followed a framework of inductive analysis, constantly searching for trends and patterns in the data. Data for this study were initially collected and organized in individual folders based on the type of data: journal, field notes, transcripts of taped interviews, e-mail communication, and surveys. After each meeting with the two teachers, I transcribed the tapes of our interviews and read my field notes. These formed the impetus for my own reflective journal. Following review and reflection, I identified themes and patterns in the data. The most prevalent of these included information manager, connecting theory and practice, and my credibility.
I developed a coding system to facilitate the categorization of data. I read and reread my data and using various colours to represent each of the emerging themes, and highlighted my interview transcripts, field notes, and journals. The colour-coded entries made it very easy to see how and when each theme was brought to the forefront, and it also helped me to see where the themes were interwoven. This organization permitted interpretation of results and helped me to expand on the literature uncovered in Chapter Two.
