RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.5 DATA COLLECTION AND ANTICIPATED ANALYSIS
4.5.1 Data Collection
Table 4.1 summarises my data collection plan for the study by indicating which method and data source could answer each of the key research questions. It should be noted that to answer the third and fourth question: Why do foundation phase teachers interpret the Natural Science Curriculum the way that they do? and Why do foundation phase teachers implement the Natural Science Curriculum the way that they do? I will draw on the theory and literature to provide answers to this question.
Table 4.1: Data Collection Plan
Key Question Method Data source
1. What are foundation phase teachers’ interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum?
Document analysis Lesson Plans
Questionnaire FP teachers, Grade R-Three Interviews FP teachers, Grade R-Three 2. How do foundation phase
teachers implement the Natural Science Curriculum?
Document analysis Learners’ books
Questionnaire FP teachers, Grade R-Three Interviews FP teachers, Grade R-Three Rating Scale FP teachers, Grade R-Three Classroom observation FP teachers, Grade R-Three 3. Why do foundation phase
teachers interpret the Natural Science Curriculum the way that they do?
Questionnaire FP teachers, Grade R-Three Classroom observation FP teachers, Grade R-Three Interviews FP teachers, Grade R-Three Rating Scale FP teachers, Grade R-Three This question is answered by considering all the data obtained and theorising the reasons why teachers do what they do.
4. Why do foundation phase teachers implement the Natural Science Curriculum the way that they do?
Questionnaire FP teachers, Grade R-Three Classroom observation FP teachers, Grade R-Three Interviews FP teachers, Grade R-Three Rating Scale FP teachers, Grade R-Three This question is answered by considering all the data obtained and theorising the reasons why teachers do what they do.
As I used the constructs and sub-constructs from the theoretical framework to inform the design of the instruments, it also acted as an analytical framework. Figure 3.1 shows a
102
diagrammatic representation of the theoretical framework for the study (Rogan 2007, p. 99) which I used to analyse the data obtained from each of the data collection methods. I will further clarify the instruments used to collect and collate the information for each data collection method. I will provide a detailed explanation of how the sub-constructs were covered in each of the methods in the following section.
4.5.1.1 Document Analysis
I designed document analysis schedules to collate the data from the curriculum documents, learners’ books and lesson plans. I provide an explanation of how I designed the schedules and how I used them to analyse each of these documents.
I drew on the sub-constructs for the profile of implementation, namely scientific investigations, hands-on science and integration of Natural Science to design the schedules I used to analyse the curriculum documents. I scrutinised the Foundation Phase and Natural Science RNCS documents (Appendix A) for evidence of each of the sub-constructs. The schedules allowed me to document the information for each sub-construct for each of the curriculum documents. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate the document analysis schedules for each of the curriculum documents analysed. I analysed the learners’ Life Skills, Literacy, Numeracy and Homework Books (Appendix B) as well as each teacher’s lesson plans for the duration of the observation (Appendix C). I attempted to work out the time teachers allocated to each of the three learning programmes including time spent on Natural Science by analysing the lesson plans submitted. I examined the Literacy, Numeracy and Life Skills Learning Programmes for content knowledge, instructional methods, physical resources, types of activities and the integration of Natural Science.
Table 4.2: Document Analysis Schedule for Foundation Phase RNCS Evidence of
Integration of Natural Science Hands-on Science Scientific Investigations
103
Table 4.3: Document Analysis Schedule for Natural Science RNCS Evidence of
Integration of Natural Science Hands-on Science Scientific Investigations
I drew on the sub-constructs for the profile of implementation, namely scientific investigations, hands-on science and integration of Natural Science to design the schedules I also used to analyse the learners’ books. I scrutinised the learners’ Life Skills, Numeracy, Literacy and homework books for evidence of each of the sub-constructs. The schedules allowed me to document the information for each sub-construct for each of the learners’ books.
Tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 illustrate the document analysis schedules for each of the learners’
books analysed. I used separate schedules for each grade.
Table 4.4: Document Analysis Schedule for learners’ Life Skills Books for each Grade Evidence of
Integration of Natural Science Hands-on Science Scientific Investigations
Table 4.5: Document Analysis Schedule for learners’ Literacy Books for each Grade Evidence of
Integration of Natural Science Hands-on Science Scientific Investigations
Table 4.6: Document Analysis Schedule for learners’ Numeracy Books for each Grade Evidence of
Integration of Natural Science Hands-on Science Scientific Investigations
104
Table 4.7: Document Analysis Schedule for learners’ Homework Books for each Grade Evidence of
Integration of Natural Science Hands-on Science Scientific Investigations
I drew on the sub-constructs for the profile of implementation and the capacity to support innovation to design the schedules for the document analysis of the teachers’ lesson plans. In the first part of the schedule, the teachers had to document the time allocation for each learning programme. Thereafter, I analysed each teacher’s Life Skills, Numeracy and Literacy lesson plans for evidence of each of the sub-constructs. Content knowledge taught and ‘instructional methods’ are linked to the sub-construct ‘teacher factors’ of the capacity to support innovation. Furthermore, ‘instructional methods’ also relates to the each of the sub- constructs for the profile of implementation as the instructional methods provide data on how the teachers implement the curriculum. ‘Physical resources’ are linked to the sub-construct capacity to support innovation as it was the support that teachers had to teach each learning programme as based on the specific lessons. The ‘types of activities’ are associated with the profile of implementation as the different activities provide data on the teachers’
implementation of the curriculum. The ‘integration of Natural Science’ is linked to the profile of implementation.
The schedules allowed me to document the information for each sub-construct for each of the teachers’ lesson plans. Tables 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 illustrate the document analysis schedules for each of the teachers’ lesson plans. I used separate schedules for each teacher.
Table 4.8: Document Analysis Schedule for Lesson Plans for each Grade Time Allocation (for the grade for the week as per lesson plans)
Learning Programmes Time (%)
Literacy Numeracy Life Skills Natural Science
105
Table 4.9: Document Analysis Schedule for Literacy Learning Programme Lesson Plans for each Grade
Day Content Knowledge
Instructional Methods
Physical Resources
Types of Activities
Integration of Natural Science
Table 4.10: Document Analysis Schedule for Numeracy Learning Programme Lesson Plans for each Grade
Day Content Knowledge
Instructional Methods
Physical Resources
Types of Activities
Integration of Natural Science
Table 4.11: Document Analysis Schedule for Life Skills Learning Programme Lesson Plans for each Grade
Day Content Knowledge
Instructional Methods
Physical Resources
Types of Activities
Integration of Natural Science
4.5.1.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire (Appendix D) aimed to gain an understanding of the teachers’ interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum within the Life Skills Learning Programme. Teachers completed the questionnaire on paper by answering the questions. The questions in the questionnaire served as a schedule to collate and analyse the data as the interview was structured around key areas. I used the questionnaire itself as a schedule to collate the teachers’
responses. What follows is an explanation of how I used each section of the questionnaire as a schedule to collect the data.
In applying the constructs of the theory of implementation to this study, the questionnaire (Appendix D) incorporated all the sub-constructs for the profile of
106
implementation, the capacity to support innovation and the support from outside agencies. I designed a variety of questions to elicit teachers’ interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum in the Life Skills Learning Programme. I constructed a set of appropriate questions which participants answered in written form (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). I gave due consideration to the sequence of the questions “so as not to confuse the participants” (Maree, 2009, p. 160).
In Section A, the teachers had to provide information on their personal details, which place the teachers’ background in context. Section A provides data on the sub-construct,
‘teacher factors’, which form part of the construct, capacity to support innovation. The information from section B on content areas provided the data for the teachers’ interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum. It also supplied data on the sub-construct, ‘teacher factors’, as part of the construct capacity to support innovation.
The information obtained from section C, on the instructional methods teacher used to teach Science provided data on how teachers implemented the curriculum. The schedule for this section provides data for the sub-construct ‘teacher factors’, which forms part of the construct the capacity to support innovation as well as the profile of implementation. Data from this section also relates to the sub-constructs: nature of classroom interaction, scientific investigations, hands-on science that forms part of the construct profile of implementation. The information obtained from section D on learner factors provided data on the sub-construct
‘learner factors’ that formed part of the construct the capacity to support innovation within the theoretical framework.
The information obtained from section E on teacher factors provided data for the sub- construct ‘teacher factors’ for the construct capacity to support innovation as well as for the sub-construct ‘professional development’ for the construct the support from outside agencies within the theoretical framework. The information obtained from section F on physical resources, provided data on the sub-construct ‘physical resources’ that formed part of the construct the capacity to support innovation as well as support from outside agencies. The information obtained from section G on general ethos and school management, provided data on the sub-construct ‘school ethos and management’ that formed part of the construct the capacity to support innovation. Section H had two parts. The first part of this schedule provided data on the ‘nature of classroom interaction’ for the construct profile of implementation. The second part of this schedule provided data on the sub-construct
‘professional development’ for the construct support from outside agencies.
107
As is evident from the above discussion, I designed the questions in the questionnaire using each of the sub-constructs of the theoretical framework. I used the schedule of questions as the instrument to collate and analyse the data as I grouped them according to each sub- construct.
4.5.1.3 Classroom Observation
I transcribed the classroom observations. The data from the classroom observations provided data on the teachers’ capacity to support innovation and the profile of implementation. The data on classroom observations did not contribute to the construct support from outside agencies. For the constructs, capacity to support innovation the data served to validate the teacher’s view of their capacity with respect to the sub-construct teacher factors. Similarly, for the sub-construct, learner factors the data from the classroom observation authenticated some of the teachers’ view of the learners. I obtained data during the classroom observations regarding the physical resources that teachers used for their lessons. For school ethos and management, I obtained information regarding the class routine from the data.
The data from the classroom observations contributed to all of the sub-constructs of the profile of implementation. I scrutinised the data for evidence relating to each sub-construct, nature of classroom interaction, integration of Natural Science, scientific investigation and hands-on science. For the nature of classroom interaction I considered the class routine and the lesson structure, language of instruction, learners’ attentiveness, questioning, use of resources, types of activities and instructional methods and managing group activities. I attempted to discover additional science teaching by identifying incidental teaching and learning. I provide more detailed explanations of how I used the constructs and sub-constructs to analyse the classroom observations under application the constructs.
4.5.1.4 Semi-structured Interviews
As mentioned earlier, the semi-structured interview (Appendix F) questions were not the same for each teacher as it drew on the information from the questionnaire and the classroom observations. The transcribed interviews were carefully analysed and the data was viewed through the lens of the sub-constructs of the theoretical framework. The questions related to each of the sub-constructs, profile of implementation, capacity to support innovation and support from outside agencies.
108
4.5.1.5 Rating Scales
The teachers completed the rating scales (Appendix G) after their interviews. There were four categories, namely, confidence, classroom preparation, managing hands-on science and developmental appropriateness. Each of these categories was linked to more than one sub- construct of the theoretical framework. Figure 4.2 below depicts the relationship between each aspect of the rating scale to the sub-constructs of the theoretical framework.
Figure 4.2: Map showing link between categories of rating scale and sub-constructs of the analytical framework
The first category had ten items, which measured teachers’ confidence in teaching science content. Some of the statements that teachers had to rate in this sub-construct were: “I have the necessary skills to teach science”, “I feel comfortable doing science activities in my classroom” and “I fear science activities would not turn out as expected”.
The second category measured teachers’ classroom preparation and had 13 items.
Some of the statements that teachers had to rate in this sub-construct were “I enjoy reading resource books to obtain ideas about science activities for young children”, “I am willing to spend time setting up materials for scientific exploration” and “I am happy to help children construct science equipment for hands-on science”.
Integration of Natural Science
Classroom Preparation
Developmental Appropriateness
Scientific Investigations Learner
Factors
Teacher Factors School Ethos
and Management
Confidence
Managing Hands- on Science Hands-on
Science
Physical Resources
109
The third category had six items to measure how teachers’ manage hands-on science.
Some of the statements that teachers had to rate in this sub-construct were: “I am not afraid of demonstrating experimental procedures in the classroom”, “I enjoy collecting materials and objects to use in my science teaching” and “I am interested in handling certain animals and insects to teach Science”.
The fourth category measured the developmental appropriateness of the Science Curriculum as perceived by the teachers. Some of the statements that teachers had to rate in this sub-construct were “I do not believe it is appropriate to introduce science to children at an early age”, “I am comfortable with determining the science curriculum that is developmentally appropriate for young children” and “I do not feel that young children are curious about scientific concepts and phenomena”. Teachers responded to the 25 positive and nine negative items using the three-point Likert Scale from agree to disagree.