RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.3.4 Data Collection Methods and Instruments
The research questions determined the paradigm, the approach and the design, as well as the methods and instruments employed in this study. The choice of instruments included document analysis, a questionnaire, classroom observations, semi-structured interviews and a rating scale. I analysed curriculum documents, lesson plans and learners’ books. I administered a questionnaire and then at a later stage conducted semi-structured interviews with the teachers.
After the interviews, the teachers completed a rating scale in which they rated themselves as science teachers. Teachers were required to provide biographical details as well as an overall view of the teachers’ understanding of teaching Natural Science in the Foundation Phase in the questionnaire. The teachers were observed in their classrooms for evidence of science teaching. I completed a comprehensive observational schedule for each foundation phase teacher and the classroom observations were video recorded. As mentioned, I used multiple data collection methods to attain pertinent data to answer the research questions.
Before embarking on a discussion of each data collection method, I will briefly explain how the theoretical framework for this study informed the design of the instruments. Chapter three described the theoretical framework with each of its constructs and sub-constructs in detail. I arrived at each of the constructs and sub-constructs after researching the factors that pertain to the South African context and in accordance with the requirements of the curriculum documents. Embedded in the discussion on the data collection methods is the explanation of how the theoretical framework informed the design of the instruments. I achieved this by linking the data obtained from the each data collection method with aspects of the theoretical framework.
I will discuss each data collection method, highlighting the advantages as well as the disadvantages of each before justifying the choice of methods and instruments used for this study.
90
4.3.4.1 Document Analysis
When documents are used as a means to gather data, the researcher focuses on printed communications that could potentially provide justification and explanations on the phenomenon being studied (Maree, 2009). Document analysis is the methodical inspection of instructional documents such as curricula, assignments, classwork and course evaluation outcomes with the intention of ascertaining instructional necessities and challenges and describes an instructional activity (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Mogalakwe (2006) stresses that the emphasis of the analysis should be a critical inspection instead of a simple explanation of the documents. The analysis should interrogate the purpose of the document;
investigate how it is being used and if it is contributing to learning.
There are two types of documents that are used in documentary study namely, primary documents and secondary documents (Cohen et al., 2011; Maree, 2009; Mogalakwe; 2006).
According to Mogalakwe (2006), “Primary documents refer to eye-witness accounts produced by people who experienced the particular event or the behaviour we want to study” (p. 222).
According to Bailey (1994), contrary to this, secondary documents are documents created by persons who were not present at the occurrence but who received reports on what transpired to enable them to compile the documents. Documents range from public through private to personal documents (Mogalakwe, 2006). An example of a public document is curriculum documents. Personal documents would be learners’ workbooks and teachers’ lesson plans.
Private documents include minutes of meetings, board resolutions and invoices.
Documents analysed in this study included public and personal documents. I analysed the Curriculum Statements (Appendix A), teachers’ lesson plans (Appendix B) and learners’
books (Appendix C). Analysis of the curriculum documents provided the starting point against which teachers’ interpretation and implementation of the curriculum were measured. As Hopkins (2008) mentions, documents around a curriculum or additional educational issues can explain the justification and intention in a thought-provoking manner. He adds that the central application of documents in classroom research is that they afford a framework for comprehending a certain curriculum or teaching method, in addition to supplying a simple method of gaining additional people’s insights. The analysis of the curriculum is not data but the benchmark for comparing what teachers do. I also used the documents to verify the data obtained from other sources.
Some advantages of document analysis include acquiring an understanding into a teaching and learning activity or method, investigating trends, patterns, and inconsistency in
91
instructional documents. In addition, documents could provide the initial research for an interview, questionnaire or observation. Interview questions, questionnaires, or an observation checklist can be informed by a document analysis (Maree, 2009). The disadvantages or limitations of document analysis could be that the documents may be incomplete or misplaced, data could be limited to what already exists and it does not assess existing learner views, requirements, or contentment (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001).
The explanation of how I used the framework to analyse the data obtained from the analysis of the document will be discussed under the data analysis.
4.3.4.2 Questionnaire
I collected data by administering a questionnaire (Appendix D) to the teachers. A questionnaire consists of a series of questions concerning an aspect or topics administered to groups of individuals to collect data on an issue under investigation (Van den Aardweg & Van den Aardweg, 1990). Nonetheless, the questionnaire has advantages as well as disadvantages. The questionnaire is regarded as one of the most common methods of gathering data (McClure, 2002; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). According to Cohen et al. (2011) questionnaires are time saving, affordable, and conducive to reliable results. Teachers were expected to write down their responses to the questionnaire. This was the initial method of data collection and I did not want to influence the teachers’ responses in any way. According to Cohen et al. (2011) written questionnaires prevent likely interview bias. The manner in which the interviewer conducts the interview may impact on the participant's replies. Such biases can be completely eliminated in the written questionnaire. I administered the questionnaire to all four teachers simultaneously thus saving time.
Some of the disadvantages are that questionnaires do not afford the flexibility of interviews (Van den Aardweg & Van den Aardweg, 1990). During an interview, the participants’ answers can be analysed and probed for further elucidation. The participants’
reaction to the questions cannot be interpreted as it can be in an interview. There is no way to tell how truthful a participant is being or of telling how much thought a participant has put in to their responses. The way the participants interpret the questions in the questionnaire, if different from the way they were intended, could affect the validity of the information.
Participants may not understand the questions and consequently, provide responses that they may not have given if they had understood the question. According to Van den Aardweg and Van den Aardweg (1990), individuals are usually better able to express their views verbally
92
than in writing. Questionnaires can be answered only when they are simple and direct the given instructions and definitions are clear and unambiguous (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001).
There are two key categories, namely open and closed questions (Maree, 2009). Some advantages that open questions afford are that the participants are provided with the opportunity to supply thorough and truthful responses, which could reveal their thinking (Maree, 2009).
However, he cautions, “the amount of detail may differ among participants” (Maree, 2009, p.161). Closed questions provide the participants with set responses from which to choose.
Closed questions are advantageous as they are quick and easy to answer (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2001). The information acquired from closed questions is easier to analyse than those from open questions. There are a number of different types of closed questions, namely, ranking, list, grid, quantity, scale and category (Maree, 2009).
I did not pilot the questionnaire, as it was not administered on a large scale. The questionnaire that was administered to the teachers took the form of a pen and paper interview.
It was not a survey as it was only administered to four teachers but served the purpose of obtaining teachers’ background and initial viewpoints as teachers answered a set of structured questions. It was easier for the teachers to write down the information. The information obtained from the questionnaire was later interrogated during the interviews. Although I was present when the teachers completed the questionnaire, the teachers were not intimidated or influenced by my understanding of the curriculum and had the opportunity to give their initial response to the questions. The questionnaire supplied data on teachers’ interpretation of the Natural Science Curriculum within the Life Skills Learning Programme.
The questionnaire consisted of both closed and open questions. The closed questions provided a range of responses from which the participants could choose (Cohen et al., 2011).
Some of the closed questions supplied the participants with choices, for example content areas, frequency or instructional methods where participants needed to select the one most appropriate. I included the open-ended questions to reveal participants’ responses by writing freely and explaining their responses. I did not analyse the closed questions quantitatively but used them as a starting point as teachers explained their choices in the open-ended questions.
Cohen et al. (2011) caution, “Open-ended questions can lead to irrelevant and redundant information” (p. 382).
I gave the four foundation phase teachers the questionnaire to complete at the beginning of the study. There was an introduction to the questionnaire, which outlined the structure of the questions, which were completed on paper. The theoretical framework
93
determined the choice of the sections in the questionnaire. I asked the participants to answer all questions honestly by ticking () the relevant column or writing their opinions in the space provided. In section A, the teachers’ biographical data was established. Along with other personal details, teachers were asked their age, academic and professional qualifications and the years spent teaching in the Foundation Phase. It was envisaged that the biographies could provide reasons for teachers implementing the curriculum the way that they did.
In the first part of section B, the teachers’ science content knowledge was determined by having them place a tick in the relevant box where each box indicated the level of confidence to teach a particular topic. The content knowledge listed was obtained from the curriculum documents. Teachers were invited to include any topic(s) that did not appear on the list. In the second part of section B, teachers were asked which science content from the list they taught often and to supply reasons for this. In the third part of section B, teachers were asked which of the science content from the list they never taught and to supply reasons for this.
In section C, teachers were required to place a tick in the column which depicted how often they used a particular instructional method in the teaching of science topics. The list of instructional methods was obtained from the curriculum documents. An addendum was attached to the questionnaire, which clarified what was meant by each instructional method.
This was done so that there would be a common understanding of the instructional methods.
Teachers could select the frequency of use from daily, weekly, fortnightly, monthly, once a term or never. Teachers could have included any other instructional method that they utilised which was not included in the list. Teachers were requested to give reasons why they used the methods, which they selected.
There were two parts to section D on learner factors. Firstly, teachers had to complete a table providing statistical data on the number of learners and the average age of the learners in their class. Secondly, teachers were supplied with characteristics that could possibly describe the learners in their class. These characteristics were obtained from the curriculum documents. Teachers were requested to first select the characteristics that described the learners in their class and then write a short paragraph to explain the choices they made.
Teachers were invited to include any other characteristics that were not on the list.
There were four parts to section E on teacher factors. A list of characteristics that could possibly describe the participants as foundation phase teachers were provided. The list was obtained from the curriculum documents. Teachers had to select the characteristics that best describes them as foundation phase teachers and explain the choices they made. Teachers
94
were invited to include any other characteristics that were not on the list. Teachers were asked to identify their strengths and weaknesses as a foundation phase teacher giving reasons for their answers. They were further requested to identify any professional development workshops that they attended with regard to teaching Natural Science in the Foundation Phase in the previous year.
In section F, teachers were given a list of resources that could assist them. They had to identify how frequently resources were used in their classrooms. The frequency included daily, weekly, fortnightly, monthly, once a term or never. Teachers could include any other resource that did not appear in the list which they used. Teachers had to respond to questions regarding the use of textbooks they used to teach Natural Science. They were asked if they firstly used a textbook, then what textbook they used and lastly why they used the textbook.
Teachers had to identify the type of resources/science equipment they used to teach Natural Science. Finally, in this section, teachers were asked to name the resources they would like to have but they do not have access to now, that they think would improve their teaching in Natural Science.
In section G, on the general ethos and school management, the teachers had to select from a list of characteristics that could describe the school. The characteristics were obtained from the curriculum documents.
In Section H, teachers are asked to firstly identify the proportion of the school day they spend on each learning programme, namely, Literacy, Numeracy and Life Skills.
Secondly, to identify ways in which their professional qualification and related field experience have best prepared them to be an effective foundation phase teacher.
As is evident, the questionnaire comprised of eight sections (Section A-H), each of which covered all the constructs and sub-constructs of the theory of implementation. The discussion on how the questionnaire relates to the constructs will be discussed under data analysis. There were questions that were open-ended to allow the participants the freedom to write about what they thought was important. The teachers’ responses were drawn into narratives.
4.3.4.3 Classroom Observation
Marshall and Rossman (2006) mention, “observation is a fundamental and highly important method in all qualitative inquiry” (p. 99). Cohen et al. (2011) declare the “distinctive feature of observation as a research process is that it offers the investigator an opportunity to gather
95
‘live’ data from naturally occurring social situations” (p. 456). The implication is that the actual, direct data is obtainable through observations.
A structured observation is a particular kind of data gathering, in which the researcher directly observes, visually and auditorily, the phenomenon, and systematically records the resulting observations. Marshall and Rossman (2006) concur, “Observation entails the systematic noting and recording of events, behaviours, and artefacts (objects) in the social setting chosen for a study” (p. 98). So do Wilkinson and Birmingham (2003) as they consider observation as a convenient instrument for researchers to apply as it involves an assortment of skills including “listening, participating, contributing, pursuing, questioning, interacting, sharing, refraining, retreating, negotiating and timing”, which at times have to be used concurrently (p.117). I undertook observations to collect data on the nature of teachers’
classroom practice in the implementation of teaching Natural Science in their foundation phase classrooms. Wiersma (2000) upholds that a significant portion of observation relates to the notion of contextualisation. To appreciate behaviour the observer must understand the context in which individuals are thinking and responding.
There are four main of types of observational research, each of which has both strengths and weaknesses (Cohen et al., 2011; Maree, 2009). There is complete observer or non-participant observation, observer as a participant, participant as observer and complete participant observation. Non-participant or complete observation is also known as naturalistic observation where there is no interference by the researcher and no attempt to influence variables (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). The intention of this type of observation is to accumulate data in a “natural setting” (Schuh & Upcraft, 2001, p. 45). The advantage is that the researcher is observing real-life and it is less obtrusive (Maree, 2009). The disadvantage of non-participant observation is that we do not know if the observation is characteristic of what usually occurs. When the observer is a participant, the researcher is in the situation but is aware of his or her role as an observer in the situation and remains uninvolved (Maree, 2009).
When the researcher is a complete participant, he/she is fully involved in the situation and there is no distinction between the observer and the participant (Cohen et al., 2011). Unlike a non- participant observer, in participant observation the researcher is immersed and is involved in the situation. Participant observation research permits the researcher to obtain data to which he or she might not have had access. McMillan and Schumacher (2001) explain that participant observation permits the researcher to validate what the participants anticipate them undertaking while being non-interfering and pursuing different opinions of events from different
96
participants for correctness and validation. The disadvantage of this type of observation is that the participants have not given their informed consent to be part of the research, which may result in serious ethical issues. The researcher could lose objectivity by being so involved in the research (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001).
In this study, I was an observer and not involved in the lessons. In addition, a professional team videotaped the lessons as unobtrusively as possible. The advantage of the classroom observation is that the participants are observed in their natural environment rather than an artificial experimental setting. Predetermined specific categories of behaviour were recorded and what was to be observed was determined before the research was conducted (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). The classroom observations supplied data on teachers’
interpretation and implementation of the Natural Science Curriculum within the Life Skills Learning Programme.
Foundation phase teachers were observed in their classrooms during the planned instruction. The duration of the observation depended on the length of the programmed schedule of work. Since all four foundation phase classes were to be observed concurrently, a professional team was employed to videotape the lessons for the intended observation period.
During the week of the planned observation, there was a taxi strike, which resulted in the classes being observed for three days. I completed the observation schedules (Appendix E) for each class whilst watching the videos. I used the three constructs to draw up the observation schedules that were used to analyse the data. The factors associated with each construct were used in the observation schedule when observing the teachers. The information I obtained from the observation schedules provided data on all the sub-constructs within the theoretical framework.
4.3.4.4 Semi-structured Interviews
Hoepfl (1997) explains that an interview is a series of questions about a certain issue that the interviewer wants to understand. He further contends that even though the intention is to obtain comparable responses from all the participants, there are no prearranged responses. Interviews are valuable because they allow the participants to share their experiences, attitudes and beliefs in their own words (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Vockell and Asher (1995) maintain that an interview is intended to allow “the participants to supply information to the researcher”
(p.133). I used semi-structured interviews for data collection purposes where the informants openly voiced their opinions.