In terms of a definite methodology for my research, I believe that I’m currently struggling with two main objectives (listed as follows) that are difficult to reconcile.
Obj 1. Observing an improvement in English communication in the three research environments. Presumably a deductive approach required on the existing assumption that English language learning is a priority and the principal means of comparative assessment.
Obj 2. Deriving a learning theory in association with the SOLE. Presumably an inductive approach based on some form of discourse analysis.
Research Strategy: Obj. 1 is a derived through deductive strategy while Obj 2 is an inductive strategy presumably based on some form of discourse analysis.
The environmental factors that characterise the SOLE are listed as follows:
Social cultural – meaning is derived as a consequence of social interaction; the social dimension of consciousness is primary while the individual dimension is derivative and secondary. Assuming learning is achieved within a (loose) socio-cultural context, an analysis of the discourse between the students would be required if any form of hypothesis were to be derived.
Not Task led – The SOLE is self organised. Whilst guided towards a general learning aim, classes are neither pre-planned nor driven by a specific set of tasks and activities. In contrast, Vygotsky believed that Cognitive Development toward self-regulation is realised through specific tasks during complex interaction with others in ones culture and mediated principally by language (DiCamilla and Anton, 2004).
Language – While the full scope of the SOLE curriculum is yet to be defined, a principal focus will be on English language acquisition through participation. In view of the L2 learning impact on student identity, it is suggested that an additional assessment of student behaviour is undertaken.
In the absence of a definitive lesson structure and a declared set of objectives, assessment can neither be process or outcome based.
No teacher – The SOLE is technology focused and self organised. The lessons are neither teacher led nor provide any definitive level of scaffolding.
Tool assessment to date has included:
– Language Learning (Participation metaphor rather than acquisition in the Social Cultural context
Analysing Accuracy, Complexity and Fluency (Ellis, Barkhuizen, 2005). Complex instrumentation that measures individual outcomes only (based on transcript analysis) and not the dialogue between students.
– SOLE Theory
Dialogue Analysis. Referencing a Kenyan research paper (Hardman, 2001) that employs a analysis tool designed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1992). The tool appears to be teacher-focused and was employed as a means of characterising the rote learning methods used in the context.
It is suggested that the Language Acquisition goals take priority. This assessment is supported by a behavioural analysis once a suitable model has been identified. Work on an unpinning SOLE theory will be subordinate to these requirements subject to further discussions with my supervisor.
In view of the complexity of the research and the unfamiliarity of the context, Dr Leats suggestion of a flexible research strategy is without doubt valid. To this extent, an Action Research approach that places the practioner at the centre and recognises the validity of procedural change will be considered.