RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.8 Instruments
a. Survey
Survey research generally involves the use of either a cross-sectional or a longitudinal design (Babbie, 1990). A cross-sectional survey collects data to make inferences about a population at one point in time (Creswell, 2009), contrary to the longitudinal survey where data is collected at several different times (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). A cross-sectional design was used in collecting data during the first phase of research.
A self-administered questionnaire with structured response categories (predominant) and a few closed-ended questions was used when collecting data. The questionnaire was developed and modified partly from the Science Teacher Inventory of Needs for Limpopo Province (STIN-LP) by Laugksch, Rakumako, Manyelo, and Mabye (2005). The original Science Teacher Inventory of Needs instrument had been developed by Zurub and Rubba (1983).
Although the STIN-LP instrument was developed for use in Limpopo province, it had been adapted for use in the South African education context in general. STIN-LP was used for identifying teachers’ professional development needs relating largely to general pedagogic skills of teachers of Mathematics, Biology and Physical Sciences. The questionnaire for this study was specific to Life Sciences and therefore necessitated adjustment to suit the context.
In addition to general pedagogic categories, specific content categories were included in this study’s survey instrument. The development of Life Sciences content-specific categories was entirely informed by the latest CAPS version of the Life Sciences curriculum. The development of other categories such as those relating to teacher motivation as well as the perceived benefits derived from engaging in various CPD programmes were constructed
97 through the review of pertinent literature. Once developed, the instrument was scrutinised by various experts and later piloted with various groups of teachers. The piloting of the instrument is explained under validity and reliability.
The teacher questionnaire (Appendix 1) was divided into four sections. Section 1 sought biographical information, including data pertaining to teachers’ academic level of education in Biological/Life Sciences; the number of years they have been teaching the subject; and their specialization, i.e. the subjects they were trained to teach in their formal qualifications.
This information was necessary to establish the trends for enrolment in further (or even initial) qualification programmes by already practising teachers. Thus, Section 2 dealt with teachers’ engagement with professional development programmes. In this section teachers were probed on their participation in both qualification and non-qualification CPD programmes. Also included in the latter part of this section were items pertaining to teachers’
attitudes, motivation and perceived development as a result of engaging in qualification programmes. Equally, other items in this section sought reasons for teachers’ non- participation in CPD programmes.
For all the data collected from items in section 2, respondents were asked to indicate their responses by checking one of five response categories with varied from “completely true” to
“completely false”, or “to a very great extent” and “to no extent at all” or “very high development and “no development at all”. Open-ended question were included to allow teachers to give detailed explanations of their opinion of CPD programmes, their perceived development through these programmes as well as their proposals on how the programmes could be improved to benefit teachers maximally. With South Africa being a multilingual country, it was indicated to the teachers that they could express themselves in any of the official languages.
Section 3 dealt with teachers’ general pedagogic needs. As in Laugksch et al. (2005), these needs were grouped into seven categories. Within the seven categories, 33 items were included. The seven categories were:
• Improving personal competence (3 items). This category included items such as
‘update subject matter knowledge’ and ‘update knowledge of teaching strategies’.
98
• Specifying objectives for instruction (4 items). This category included items such as
‘Identifying learning objectives which specify knowledge needed by learners in Life Sciences’.
• Diagnosing and evaluating learning (6 items). This category included items such as
‘Developing skills in recognising and correcting learners’ common misconceptions’, and ‘Developing learners’ language skills by including it as part of the assessment’.
• Planning instruction (5 items). This category included items such as ‘Develop lesson plans’, ‘Select appropriate resources for Life Sciences’.
• Delivering instruction (8 items). This category included items as ‘Doing practical demonstrations’.
• Managing instruction (3 items). This category included items such as ‘Appropriate use of group work’.
• Administering instructional facilities and equipment (4items). This category included items such as ‘Use of media and everyday resources appropriately in teaching’.
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of need by checking one of three response categories from “greatly needed” to “not needed”.
Section 4 was designed using the latest CAPS document listing all the topics of the Life Sciences curriculum in the FET band (Grade 10-12). These topics are categorized into four Knowledge Strands:
• Knowledge Strand 1-Life at molecular, cellular and tissue level (6 items)
• Knowledge Strand 2- Life processes in plants and animals (9 items)
• Knowledge Strand 3- Environmental studies (6 items)
• Knowledge Strand 4 - Diversity, change and continuity (9 items)
As with Section 3, the respondents were asked to indicate their level of need by checking one of three response categories from “greatly needed” to “not needed”.
Open-ended questions were also included in the questionnaire where respondents were allowed to elaborate on their needs, providing specific detail on both pedagogic and subject matter related needs.
99 A second questionnaire (Appendix 2) was designed and administered to UKZN ACE Biological Sciences teachers (students). This questionnaire also included closed and a few open-ended questions. The questionnaire sought teachers’ perceived development in both content and pedagogic knowledge.
b. Interviews
In addition to the survey, in-depth interviews were conducted with Subject Advisors. An interview was conducted with one Subject Advisor from District 2 and another Advisor from another district which did not form part of the study. The reason to include a second advisor was to allow for triangulation of facts from at least two sources of the same professional and occupation level. As a caretaker for District 1 for at least three years, the interviewed Advisor from District 2 had full insight into professional development programmes related to Life Sciences in that district. A decision was taken to not include the caretaker Subject advisor from District 3 as the interview protocol consisted of questions specific to Life Sciences curriculum. As indicated earlier, in this district, senior teachers were taking turns in facilitating the training workshops.
An interview schedule with a set of pre-determined open-ended questions (Appendix 3) was prepared in order to engage the participant (de Vos et al., 2005). The interview questions included questions directly related to the role of Subject advisors in teacher professional development. Other questions in the interview schedule had already been explored with teachers in the first questionnaire. These questions sought information on teachers’
development needs; their motivation for engaging in CPD programmes; how the learning is conducted during CPD programmes such as workshops, clusters, as well as challenges associated with such; the perceived development as a result of participation in CPD programmes. The purpose of posing similar questions to the different participants such as the teachers and advisors in this case, was to triangulate data sources. Triangulating information from different sources helps to build a coherent justification for themes during analysis (Creswell, 2009). When themes are established based on converging different perspectives from participants, this can be viewed as adding to the validity of the study (Creswell, 2009).
100