RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

456 ROLE-PLAYING
to the four videos were scored 0 to 5 on the
Kohlberg-type scale set out in Box 21.4. The
analysis of scripts from a stratified sample of
some 480 pupils suggested that older, high-ability
girls of visible ethnic minority group membership
were most perceptive of teacher racism and
younger, low-ability boys of indigenous white
group membership, least perceptive. For further
examples of role-play in an educational setting
see Robson and Collier (1991) and Bolton and
Heathcote (1999).
Evaluating role-playing and other
simulation exercises
Because the use of simulation methods in classroom
settings is growing, there is increasing need
to evaluate claims concerning the advantages and
effectiveness of these approaches against more traditional
methods. Yet here lies a major problem. To
date, as Megarry (1978) observes, a high proportion
of evaluation effort has been directed towards
the comparative experiment involving empirical
comparisons between simulation-type exercises
and more traditional teaching techniques in terms
of specified learning pay-offs. However, there are
weaknesses to this experimental method of evaluation
(Megarry 1978) in that it misses the complex,
multiple and only partly known inputs and outputs,
the outputs may not be a consequence of the inputs,
there are significant interaction effects which
are important rather than being seen as contaminating
‘noise’ as in the experimental approach.
What alternatives are there to the traditional
type of evaluative effort Megarry (1978) lists
the following promising approaches to simulation
evaluation:
using narrative reports
using checklists gathered from students’
recollections of outstanding positive and
negative learning experiences
encouraging players to relate ideas and
concepts learned in games to other areas of
their lives
using the instructional interview, a form of
tutorial carried out earlier with an individual
learner or a small group in which materials
Box 21.4
Categorization of responses to four video extracts
Level
(Score)
Description
0 No response or nothing which is intelligibly about the ‘ways in which people treat one another’ in the extract.
Alternatively this level of response may be wrong in terms of fact and/or in interpretation.
1 No reference to racism (i.e. unfairness towards visible ethnic minority pupils) either by theteacherorbypupils,
either implicitly or explicitly.
2 Either some reference to pupils’ racism (see level 1 above) but not to the teacher’s, or, reference to racism is left
unspecified as to its perpetrator. Such reference is likely tobeimpliedandmayrelatetooneormoreexamples
drawn from the extract without any generalization or synthesizing statement(s). The account is at a superficial
level of analysis, understanding and explanation.
3 There is some reference to the teacher’s racist behaviour and actions. Such reference is, however, implied rather
than openly stated. There may also be implied condemnation of the teacher’s racist behaviour or actions. There
will not be any generalized statement(s) about the teacher’s racism supported with examplesdrawnfromthe
extract.
4 At this level the account will explicitly discuss and illustrate the teacher’s racism but the analysis will show a
superficial knowledge and understanding of the deeper issues.
5 At this level the account will explicitly discuss the teacher’s racism as a generalization and this will be well
illustrated with examples drawn from the extract. One or more of these examples may well be of the less obvious
and more subtle types of racist behaviour or action portrayed in the extract.
Source:Naylor1995