supporting materials extract i- oxford university

Applicant for DPhil in Education Programme, Dept. of Education, Oxford UniversityApplicant’s name: Mirat al Fatima AhsanSupporting Material Extract I: Extract from MPhil Thesis - ELT Practitioners and their Conceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Higher Education Context of Pakistan

3.2 On Methodology

My three research questions looked at conceptions of ELT teachers about teaching and learning

and factors that may affect them such as teacher education, and sought to do so within a cultural

framework. Therefore I needed a theoretical framework that allowed me to explore the

phenomenon, that is, teaching and learning, but in a way where the focus was not on the

phenomenon but on describing the ways individuals experienced the phenomenon. Since the

questions sought to explore these experiences within a cultural context, the methodology needed

to be responsive and sensitive to this focus as well. In the following section I justify adopting a

Phenomenographic approach by comparing and contrasting it with other three possible

approaches.

3.2.1 Why Phenomenography?

Phenomenography is a relatively new research tradition that emerged in the late 1970s from

Sweden. It was developed by Marton and Booth, to study thinking and learning, particularly in

the context of educational research (Marton, 1986). Svensson (1997) states that “it represents a

specific approach adapted to the objects of conceptions” (p.162). According to Marton and

Booth (1997)

Phenomenography is focused on the ways of experiencing different phenomena, ways of seeing them,

knowing them and having skills related to them. The aim is, however, not to find the singular essence,

but the variation and the architecture of this variation in terms of the different aspects that define the

phenomena. (p. 110)

Phenomenographic approaches, match the study’s aim, and focus on individuals’ experiences of

phenomena rather than the phenomenon itself. This is one of the reasons why it was chosen.

Another option was taking a Phenomenological approach which has a similar focus. Also

Brentano’s notion of intentionality is a key concept in both approaches1. As Phenomenology is a

far older research tradition, founded on the work of Husserl in the 1900s, it has been suggested

that Phenomenography arose from it (Enwistle, 1997). Marton (1981) acknowledges that

1 This relates to the idea that our consciousness is always directed towards something, we are always conscious of or about something and in that sense there is an active engagement between our consciousness and knowing of the world- of objects – of phenomenon (Crotty, 1998).


Phenomenography borrows key concepts from Phenomenology but also highlights fundamental

differences. Differences between the two that are most relevant to my study are discussed here.

The most significant difference is in their orientation to how ‘conceptions’ are to be understood

and studied. A Phenomenographic approach focuses on studying conceptions as a range in which

varying individual experiences of the phenomenon, (this includes the scientifically approved

version of the conception) are understood to exist as a hierarchical continuum (Marton, 1981).

The objective of a Phenomenographic study is to chart these variations and in doing so preserve

a record of the collective experience and understanding of aspects of a phenomena/reality so it

may serve as an “evolutionary tool” (Marton, 1981, p. 177). Phenomenological approaches, in

contrast generally (Moran, 2000) focus on varying experiences in order to identify the

“essence”2. This means the focus is on individual and inter-subjective meaning in so far it relates

to convergence between the individual’s and researchers’ consciousnesses, and through

Phenomenological reduction, on the common elements of the experience. My study focused on

exploring the different ways Pakistani ELT teachers saw and experienced teaching and learning.

The aim was to map their range of conceptions not to identify their essence.

The fact that Phenomenographers take a second-order perspective as opposed to the first-person

point of view taken in Phenomenological approaches was also relevant. Taking a second-order

perspective requires researchers to keep an open mind to try and see what participants’

experiences are, as they are, without imposing their own perceptions and understandings. They

do so without attempting to merge their consciousness with participants’ consciousness as is

done when a first order perspective is taken (Moran, 2000). The focus is on you, that is the

participant, rather than on the researcher as the participant-‘I as you’. This difference relates to

their opposing metaphysical positions. Phenomenological approaches are noumenal and take a

transcendental idealist stance (Moran, 2000; Soon & Barnard, 2002) to describe the world and

objects in it in terms of an ideal world. In contrast, Phenomenographic studies take an empirical

position and are phenomenal. They focus on describing the experienced world. Consequently,

2 For Husserl essence relates to the whatness of things. As there are many different types of phenomenology (Dall’Alba, 2009), the definition of what constitutes essence varies. However there is consensus that apprehending an individual’s experience of the phenomena “ as it is lived”, means getting at the meaning of the experience- the properties, qualities and aspects that make the experience essentially what it is (Moran, 2000).


Phenomenographic findings are autonomous because the individual’s and the researcher’s

consciousness remain separate (Marton, 1981, p. 179). When Phenomenographers ‘bracket’,

they focus on serving as a ‘neutral filter’, to ‘see’ participants’ experiences. This is why findings

are argued to be empirical. They relate to what is ‘seen’ rather than being dependent on who the

interpreter / researcher is and their individual consciousness. Marton (1981) also points out that

accessing individuals’ worlds through their experience, as phenomenologists do, makes it

difficult to separate what is experienced from the experience itself. Applied to my study this

would mean looking at both_ what teaching and learning is and participants’ experiences of

teacher and learning. What I am trying to explore however, are teachers’ understandings of

teaching and learning, not what teaching and learning are.

Their differing ontological positions were also relevant. Phenomenological approaches take a

dualistic stance in which objects and subjects are two separate, independent realities. Meaning is

inter-subjective and derives from the interaction of the two. Reality, in Phenomenography is seen

in non-dualistic terms. The subject and the object are interdependent entities, with the object

having meaning because it is perceived. Walker (1998) gives the example of a book and reader

to illustrate this concept. The book exists- has meaning because there is someone to read it.

Similarly in the case of my study, the object- conceptions of teaching and learning exist -have

meaning because there are teachers to interact with and have experiences of teaching and

learning.

The final relevant difference relates to data analysis. Data collected in Phenomenological studies

is analysed for what is common, culminating in the identification of meaning units.

Phenomenographic data is concerned with the descriptive and the collective in the sense that it is

analysed for identifying “content-loaded” descriptions (Uljens, 1996), that is, categories of

description of the ways in which the phenomena has been seen/interacted with. This is then

further analysed for optimum minimisation of categories to produce an “outcome space”. These

categories of description and ‘outcome space’ relate to the awareness and variation theory

developed by phenomenographers (Booth 1997, Bowden & Marton, 1999; Marton, 1988; Marton

& Booth, 1997). The awareness theory states that participants’ awareness of experiences has a

theme and a margin. The theme is the foreground, the main focus of the participants’ awareness


of the phenomenon. The theme includes all aspects directly related to the phenomenon and its

boundary is determined by the internal horizon. The margin or the thematic field relates to

aspects indirectly related to the participants’ awareness of the phenomenon and their boundary is

determined by an external horizon- that is the perceptual boundary associated with participants’

ways of seeing. The internal and external horizons constitute the structural aspects . The variation

theory (Marton, 2002) posits that individuals are able to derive meaning about a phenomenon

once they are able to distinguish it from other phenomena. The ability to make this distinction in

turn depends on participants’ experience of variation and this enables them to clarify the

meaning of the experience. This is referred to as the referential aspect. This difference between

analysing for variance versus essence was the final basis for my choice.

Ethnography was another choice as it is similar to Phenomenography in terms of being inductive,

descriptive, interactive and entailing recursive data analysis (Richardson, 1999). More

importantly, it allows a focus on culture. However, literature (Marton, 1986; Richardson, 1999;

Svensson, 1997) points out their difference in aims, nature of description required, in methods

and in data analysis. The deciding factor for me was the difference in aim _ ethnography is

concerned essentially with culture and questions which seek to explore phenomena in terms of

social processes (Patton, 2002). Phenomenography focuses on investigating conceptions with the

fundamental assumption that knowledge and conceptions are relational where “knowledge is a

question of meaning in a social and cultural context” (Svensson, 1997, p. 165). My study focused

on variance of conceptions with specific conceptual orientations regarding culture (section 2.2.2,

p.10). There was, therefore, greater resonance between my study aims, questions and

Phenomenography. Also, ethnography, because of its focus on social processes, requires cultural

immersion, a condition that neither the scope nor the timelines of my study could have met.

Grounded Theory, though similar to Phenomenography, in being grounded in empirical data and

data-driven, and being exploratory (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000; Entwistle & Ramsden,

1983), aims at theory generation and answering questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’. My study aimed

at describing conceptions/experiences of ELT teachers about teaching and learning. Also

Grounded Theory is positivistic in orientation (Richardson, 1999). Knowledge is discovered – is


an objective truth (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). My study has an entirely different epistemological

positioning.

3.2.2 Criticism on the Phenomenographic Approach

Phenomenographic studies have been criticised on various fronts in the literature (Haggis, 2003;

Webb, 1997; Richardson, 1999). Therefore, I incorporated elements in the study design to

respond to those criticisms considered most relevant.

Studies have been criticised for ignoring culture and context when interpreting data and for

treating findings as “neutral, cognitive truth” (Haggis, 2003, p.93; also see Webb, 1997; Uljens,

1996). Marton (1981) argues that categories of description are “frozen forms of thoughts”

(p.181) arrived at by separating categories from thinking and thinking from its original context.

He cites Popper’s third world and its focus on “objective contents of thoughts” and his notion of

“epistemology without a knowing subject” (p. 196) to support his argument. There is an inherent

contradiction in this. In the same paper Marton (1981) acknowledges that to identify and

systematise people’s interpretations of aspects of reality entails drawing on socially significant

frameworks (p.181). This means that cultural frameworks would impact on variations and also

on how they are understood. This issue of culture and context is addressed in two ways in my

study. Conceptions have been investigated within a cultural frame of reference (see section

2.2.3). Uljen’s (1996) solution of interpreting experiences within their social, historical and

cultural dimensions has also been implemented by engaging in a hermeneutic mode of data

interpretation.

Webb (1997) and Haggis (2003) question the likelihood of researchers’ being able to

successfully bracket and take the second-order perspective. Webb (1997) cites Popper’s theory

of horizons expectations to argue that cultural and social assumptions cannot be bracketed as all

meaning-making is value-laden rather than value-neutral. Engaging in a hermeneutic

interpretation of the data resolved this as it entailed taking my assumptions as an insider and

outsider into account.


Richardson (1999) highlights that Phenomenographic data generally comprises only of interview

data where participants’ accounts are accepted at face value. He argues that it is unlikely that

‘tacit and implicit knowledge’ would easily be accessed through discourse. Webb (1997)

characterises Phenomenographic interviews as being “short-termed, controlled and

instrumentally-directed” (p. 200) and therefore being positivistic in orientation rather than

qualitative as claimed. The use of qualitative tools, the phased data collection process and the

hermeneutic mode of data interpretation all speak to this concern.

3.3 On Philosophy: ‘what is’ and ‘how we know’

Ontologically the study’s position on reality aligns with Phemenongraphy’s view of reality.

There is only one world and objects in it have meaning because they are perceived (Marton,

1981). This non-dualistic perspective has two implications for the study’s orientation. Reality is

conceived of as existing outside the mind and in that sense the study takes a realist position.

Also because the object is dependent on being perceived to have meaning, epistemologically

knowledge is not seen in terms of objective truth as in objectivism3.

This epistemological stance, regarding meaningful reality emerging from an interaction between

consciousness and reality, corresponds closely with two epistemological positions. The first is

social constructionism :“ all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is

contingent upon human practices being constructed in and out of interaction between human

beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context”

(Crotty, 1998, p.42). The second is constructivism where the knower interprets reality based on

their own experiences and interactions with their environment (Gergen, 1999). Both see

knowledge as a meaning-making process, but while constructionism focuses on the “collective

generation of meaning” (Crotty, 1998, p. 58), constructivism, particularly radical constructivism

(Von Glaserfield, 1995), sees meaning-making as a uniquely individual process. This study

looked at ELT teachers’ experiences of/interactions of teaching and learning within a cultural

3 This is antithetical to Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) view who posit that to take a realist ontological position means the knower takes an objective detached position towards the world and objects in it (p. 108). Crotty (1998) gives the examples of Husserl to argue that a realist ontological positioning can be compatible with a interpretive stance.


frame of reference. In doing so it focused on collective meaning in two ways. It looked at the

range of experiences and it did so by orienting these within a collective frame. In that sense it is

constructionist in its assumptions about what makes meaning. Yet there are constructivist

elements because by not reducing experiences to their common elements what was unique in

participants’ understanding and interactions with teaching and learning was preserved.

I am aware that this is a problematic positioning. The study fits well within the social

constructionist paradigm especially since it too takes a non-dualistic stance on reality (Young &

Collins, 2004). In constructionism we construct knowledge by engaging with the world and

objects in it. Conversely, in the constructivist approach reality is dualistic: the inner world

explains the outer world (Von Glaserfield, 1995). However the study’s focus on the individual’s

experience and engagement cannot be fully accounted for by orienting it solely within the social

constructionist paradigm, hence the study is positioned within the social constructionist paradigm

but with a slightly constructivist orientation.

3.4 On Gathering of Data

Sampling, choice of methods and data analyses were engaged in keeping in view the research

context, research questions, the Phenomenographic framework and constraints and limitations of

the study.

An emergent design was used, as in Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Richardson,

1999), so that the study was data -driven and included three stages with three different types of

interviews being used. This is a modification of the traditional phenomenographic data collection

practices. Though alternate methods such as participant observation are discussed (Marton,

1988), the interview is the preferred method (Marton, 1986). Observation was not considered as

a method because the scope of the study included a focus on teachers’ experiences as manifested

in their own accounts (Marton & Booth, 1997) rather than their practice4. The modified design

was a response to criticisms of the ‘Phenomenographic interview’. To be able to access

participants’ actual experiences I needed to bypass their defence structures: their concern with

4 There was also the issue of the possible disjunction between understanding and practice, that is espoused theory versus theory-in-action highlighted earlier (section 2.3.1)


‘presenting the right image’, but without raising ethical concerns (Francis, 1993; Richardson,

1999), or being positivistic and taking a solely directed approach (Webb, 1997). It was

anticipated that a staged design would allow for a relatively gradual emergence of participants’

experiences that would be induced naturally through building rapport _ a state of “meta-

awareness” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 129).

( Word Count: 2,634)

supporting materials extract i- oxford university

Documents