RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.6 DATA GENERATION METHODS
To solicit information from the participants, I used research instruments. I used three data generation methods. These were observations, semi-structured and focus group interviews. I therefore developed semi-structured and focus group schedules, as well as an observation schedule to serve as my research instruments. According to Leedy (1993), research instruments are tools that serve to assist the researcher to collect relevant data that will help answer research questions, as stated in Chapter One. Three instruments were developed and employed in this research. These are: observation, semi-structured and focus group interview schedules. Since each of these instruments has its strengths and weaknesses, the use of three different instruments necessitated triangulation as a way of counteracting the shortcomings of each.
Mouton and Marais (2003) observe that, triangulation includes multiple data collection sources in a single a research project to enhance the dependability of the results and to compensate for the limitations of each method. Thus, the use of the three instruments enabled me to ‘home in’
an understanding of the phenomenon under investigation by approaching it from different angles (Terre-Blanche and Dhurrheim, 1999 cited in Mutasa, 2003). This ensured validity and reliability of the results of this research.
3.6.1 Observations
Qualitative researchers are contended that all researches about social phenomenon like education can be best carried out through the use of interactive techniques of generating data.
One such technique is observation. The research being qualitative in nature, is field focused (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). This implies that a researcher in education cannot avoid visiting schools and observe what goes on in those schools. In this research I observed the teachers delivering lessons at the three schools.
Observations are highly favoured in research because they allow researchers to access authentic information through the observation of situations as they transpire. According to Corbin and Strauss (2008) observation is very crucial in research in that it usual that people may say that they are doing one thing yet in reality they may be doing something different so going there to see it for oneself can help researchers to know the truth. Therefore, the researcher can get information about the physical environment and about human behaviour through recording from the actual situation without having to rely on retrospective or anticipatory accounts of others (Sapsford and Jupp, 2006).
51 In this study I used an observation schedule to guide in the collection of data. In a space of three weeks, one lesson observation per teacher was conducted with all the fifteen teachers teaching the lower grades. This means that, in total, fifteen lessons were observed. Observation time was dependent on the time allocated for the lesson in a particular school. I consistently used the observation schedule to collect data, upon which items on the observation schedule were completed. All the lessons observed were video-taped. This was done to capture all the key issues and all the video recordings were then transcribed on completion of the observations for the purposes of analysis. Recording was done as all the participants had signed Participant Consent Forms prior to the observation dates.
However, the observation method has been criticised by some critics claiming that it is prone to bias as some people would behave in a certain way so as to please the researcher. Sapsford and Jupp (2006) note that when people are being observed they may consciously or unconsciously behave artificially and as result, what the researcher observes may not truly reflect their natural behaviour. However, paying constant visits to the schools under study enabled me as the researcher to get familiar to the teachers and as such, on the actual observation day the participants displayed their natural behaviour as they regarded me as one of them. This ensured the authenticity of the research results. The Grade 1 to 3 classes were targeted for observation in this research.
3.6.2 Interviews
Besides observations, interviews were also used during the research. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) are of the view that in qualitative research the most favoured method for data gathering is the interview. Gray (2014) sees an interview as a verbal exchange in which one person, the interviewer attempts to acquire information from and gain understanding of another person, the interviewee. This implies that, the purpose of interviewing research participants is for the researcher to acquire information that helps him/her to answer the research questions. The interview is viewed by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) is a powerful implement for researchers because it is a flexible data gathering tool because it allows multi-sensory channels to be used: verbal, non-verbal and spoken. In this study, I used the semi-structured and focus group interviews.
52 3.6.2.1 Semi-structured interviews
Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007:182) state that,
The popularly used interview technique employed in qualitative research is the semi-structured interview, where a schedule is prepared that is sufficiently open ended to enable the contents to be reordered, digressions and expansions made, new avenues to be included, and further probing to be undertaken.
A semi-structured interview is therefore flexible in that researchers can reorder the contents as well probe further if need arises.This type of interview has an advantage because it allows for further probes, thus, enabling the researcher to get more relevant data (Sapsford and Jupp, 2006; Ogunniyi, 1984).Gray (2014) concurs with the view above when he avers thatthe researcher is in a position to probe for further clarification of responses if semi-structured interviews are used. The use of the semi-structured interviews therefore, enabled me as the researcher to obtain the participants’ meanings and how they viewed the central experiences in their lives (MacMillan and Schumacher, 2006).
In this study I interviewed all the fifteen participating school teachers to establish from them how they were experiencing the use of Shangani as the medium of instruction at their schools.
Shank (2002:33) observes that, “We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe”. Thus, a one on one interview was conducted at a quiet place to avoid any form of disturbance during the interview process. The interview focused on their experiences on using Shangani as the medium of instruction, how they are affected by those experiences of teaching through the Shangani medium and why they construct the relationship between their experiences and the factors that influence the implementation of the policy in the way they do. Both the observations and the interview yielded qualitative data that was then interpreted to explicate the participants’ point of view (Marshal and Rossman, 2006).
The interview was indispensable in a research that sought to establish the experiences of teachers using Shangani as the medium of instruction. This is so because as alluded by Sidman (2013) in Gray (2014: 383) “At the route of interviewing then is the intent to understand the lived experiences of other people and the meaning they make of that experience.” Thus, the interview enabled me to understand the experiences of teachers in their day to day operations in a predominant Shangani community and their own interpretations of their experiences. In addition to that, interviews have an advantage that meanings of questions can be immediately
53 clarified and that they have a good return rate. As such, I managed to get relevant information from relevant people through the use of the interview.
The major shortcoming of the interview is that the respondents may be reluctant to freely air their views as certain issues may be very sensitive. To counter this shortcoming, Lofland (2006) in Corbin and Strauss (2008) states that field researchers are obligated to give the research participants a guarantee that they will remain anonymous through an assurance that pseudonyms would be used in the research report. I gave the participants that assurance of confidentiality to enable me to access the perspective of the person being interviewed (Pattorn, 1990 in Best and Kahn, 1993). Also, Merriam (2009) states that tape recording the interview ensures that everything said is preserved for analysis. In this study, audio recordings of the interview sessions were done to ensure that all the interview data were captured.
Furthermore, interviews have been criticised for the fact that they are prone to interviewer bias.
To minimize bias, the interviewer has to read questions exactly as they are written, to repeat a question when asked, to accept a participant’s refusal to answer a question without showing signs of frustration and to probe in a non-directive manner (Gray, 2014). In the interview process I ensured that the environment was relaxed and I was very patient to ask questions in a simplified manner in instances when respondents had not understood the question in the first place.
3.6.2.2 Focus group interviews
Another data gathering tool used in this study was the focus group interview. De Vos et al (2005) describe a focus group interview as a way of obtaining an enhanced appreciation of the feelings or thought of the people about a subject matter, product or service. Focus group interviews are thus, not in a sense of a backwards and forwards between the interviewer and group but the communication amongst group members who examine a topic given by the researcher (Morgan, 1988:9 in Cohen , Manion and Morrison, 2007) yielding a collective rather than an individual view.
The major reason why the focus group interview was chosen is that it presented a more normal communication environment as compared to a one on one interview because participants are influence and get influenced by others-just like what happens in real life situations. (Krueger and Casey, 2009:7). Therefore, through interaction among group members, participant views emerged and enabled me as the researcher to gain insights that might not have been available
54 in a one on one interview. The focus group interviews with teachers from each school were also video recorded. I chaired the discussions so as to keep the focus group interviews open ended but to the point (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007).
Ritchie and Lewis (2003) point out that in focus group interviews data are generated by interaction between group participants. They further state that participants are given a chance to ask questions for each other, ask for elucidation, give comments on what they have heard and probe others to say more on the topic under discussion. In addition, as they respond to each other, participants make known their own standpoint regarding the subject under study (Lewis and Ritchie, 2003). This implies that participants should be allowed to interact amongst themselves on issues raised by their colleagues as a way of unearthing in-depth knowledge on issues that relate to the research sub questions.
As the discussion develops, the response by the individual becomes sharpened and improved and moves to a deeper and more significant level (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003).In this study, the three focus group interviews helped me to reach a deeper understanding on the teachers’
experiences of using Shangani as the medium of instruction since most of the discussions raised a lot of debate on the issue under investigation.
In focus group interviews it is the researchers’ duty to keep the discussion focussed on the research topic. Ritchie and Lewis (2003) are quick to note that focus groups should not be left to chance and circumstance by virtue of them being naturalistic; their naturalism has to be cautiously fixed by the researcher. In all the three focus group discussions I consistently monitored the direction of the discussions to ensure that they were in tandem with the participants’ experiences on the use of Shangani as the medium of instruction at the elementary level.
3.6.2.2.1 Stages of a focus group according to Lewis and Ritchie (2003)
1. Scene setting and ground rules: When all the participants are gathered the researcher makes a more formal start to the session with a personal introduction, outline a research topic and background information on the intention of the study and its founder, At this point confidentiality is stressed.
2. Individual introductions: This is where the researcher allows participants to introduce themselves.
55 3. The opening topic: It should be easy-conceptual or definitional.
4. Discussion: Here members in the focus group engage in an in-depth interaction on issues under discussion.
5. Ending discussion: This is where the discussion is officially ended.
If these procedures are followed, the participants can be free to share and contribute meaningfully to the research by sharing views in a free environment. In this study, all these procedures were followed and this contributed to the success of all the focus group interviews.