This paper reflects on an Ethical Review Board’s (ERB) established structure of practice throughout a student-led project. We use the research project as a means of exploring the three questions set by the Editors, Fox and Busher, regarding the role of ERBs throughout the research process. We gained full university-level ethical approval in October 2020. This project initially focused on collecting data from students, from a UK university. The participatory way we collaborated with both undergraduates and postgraduates illuminated their individual unique perspectives and successfully facilitated their agentive contributions. This required on-going simultaneous negotiation of predetermined ethical procedures through the ERB. We termed this iterative process ‘circumnavigating the revolving door’ as it summarised revisiting ethical approval in the light of requests from our student participants. The participants were also invited to be part of the analysis and dissemination phase of this research. Original data collected related to personalised experiences of learning during the on-going global pandemic. The philosophical approach adopted was through an adaptation of Photovoice. That is, with limited direction by the researchers, the participants were invited to construct images (photos or hand drawn pictures), with captions (written text or voice), to explore their own educative circumstances. With this in mind, this paper explores the students’ participatory agency throughout this visual methods project through three lenses: namely, the appropriateness of ethical practices within a contextualised scenario (i.e., researching learning during lockdown in a higher educational institution); how the ethical process of an educational establishment supported the dynamic and iterative nature of participant-led research; and finally, how the original researchers’ experiences can inform ethical regulations and policy, both nationally and internationally. The circumnavigation of the revolving door of participatory ethics has proved invaluable during this research. This iterative cycle was necessary to incorporate the students (or co-researchers) suggested contributions. One example includes gaining the ERB’s approval, post full approval, for participants to audio record their own captions for a public facing website. From originally welcoming the students as participants, to facilitating them to become agentive co-researchers, it became increasingly important to provide them with opportunities to be actively involved in all parts of the research process. The reciprocal iterative relationship developed between co-researcher, researchers and the ERB served to strengthen the outcomes of the project.
This article will focus on the ethical dilemmas and concerns related to eliciting the nature of agency in classrooms that emerges in learning contexts. Agency is a somewhat elusive phenomena to evidence because it involves capturing signs and indications of thinking involved in negotiating meanings, the capacity for initiating, and constructional decision-making. These processes are often made explicit through dialogic and actional exchanges between teachers and/or learners. This includes taking account of activities engaged in, either independently or collaboratively. It also requires evidence of earlier happenings or interactions between classroom participants that might influence and shape later events. There is also concern about the ways that teachers’ and learners’ demonstrable originality or creativity are recognised and communicated for scrutiny by others. Additionally, ethical approval procedures (BERA 2018) require that research protects participants’ anonymity, confidentiality, and dignity; therefore, research has to be carried out with integrity. Ensuring benefits from research are maximised and that no-one is harmed or made to feel uncomfortable requires the utmost care and balance between eliciting insightful data while maintaining the appropriate duty of care for participants. To achieve these objectives, multiple research methods were used. Audio and video recordings were transcribed and analysed to make sense of teacher and learner agency. The findings include an events map, photographic images, and dialogic episodes illustrating the nature of contrasting teacher and learner agency. The conclusion considers tensions that emerge as researchers seeking to characterize agency without compromising privacy.
For the last 28 years, one of the leading international science education organisations has regularly provided a week-long summer school experience for doctoral students. In summer 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prevented international travel and closecontact interactions between scholars. This required the transformation and relocation of learning interactions between mentors and doctoral students online through a virtual week-long summer school. All doctoral participants, from across the five continents, were invited to reflectively comment on their educative experience after the online event. This paper consequently presents the perspectives of these science education PhD students who engaged with the transformed virtual summer school to consider how the range of varied online interactions maintained the learning opportunities for them and enabled their introduction to an established research community. The study indicates how the digital activities facilitated and maintained high-quality learning exchanges through a varied array of intellectual activities involving both experienced and novice scholars.
Creativity and the way it could be supported in schools is understood differently by policy makers, practitioners and scientists. This article reviews, with a chronological lens, the development of policies that include teaching creativity and teaching for creativity. The epistemic tensions between the intentions of government and the nature of creativity as it emerges in learning or scientific work is introduced and reflected upon. There have been more than nine key educational policies that have been introduced over the last 50 years. Each of these are considered in this article and related to the ways that creativity is understood and expected to be taught, supported or enacted in schools by policy makers. In light of the need to support creativity as a key twenty‐first‐century skill, to ultimately enable current students (who will become the next generation of scientists) to develop the capabilities to address global concerns, this article highlights issues related to this issue. Epistemic insights are offered that relate to the development of aspects of creativity, including questioning, developing alternate ideas, ‘seeing’ things differently, innovation, curiosity, problem solving and evaluating. The ways that policy related to creativity in science appears not to recognise how creativity can be reified in these ways in schools suggests the need for rapid review, especially in light of the upcoming international creativity tests in 2021.
Successful scientists need to think carefully about the particular aspect of the world around them they are investigating. They build on what is known in their area of science to identify how they might examine the issue or problem they are concerned with to offer further insights. Through investigating natural phenomena, they can solve problems and communicate new ways of looking at the world. Their work serves to address global and societal challenges and often offers improved ways of living. The ways that scientists’ work can have implications for educational processes designed to prepare would-be scientists or scientifically aware citizens of the future. Eliciting reflections from experienced scientists recounting how they came to develop their scientific intellect, expertise and problem-solving know-how is useful to inform science education. This article reports on an aspect of a larger project involving 24 scientists specialising in biological or physical science research from Higher Education Institutions, located in either Manchester, Oxford or London. The study adopts a retrospective phenomenographical methodology and applies two fresh theoretical perspectives to eight in-depth interviews with professional scientists working in university departments involved in ground-breaking research. Conversations with the scientists were framed to explore the nature and extent of formal and informal learning influences affecting the development of their inventiveness and expertise in becoming scientists. The reified perspectives collated here show how a range of experiences have afforded expert scientists the opportunity to apply their intellectual capabilities. These kinds of demonstrable abilities have enabled them to scientifically contribute to being able to solve real-world problems. Additionally, a cross-case analysis of scientists’ reported learning experiences could inform science education policy and practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.