3.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.5.5 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
3.5.5.1 Unstructured interview
Interviewing is regarded as the predominant mode of data or information collection in qualitative research (Greeff, 1998: 292). Interviewing can also be described as a social action between the interviewer and interviewee to obtain research information (Schurink, 1998: 298). In this research an unstructured one-to-one interview, also sometimes referred to as the in-depth interview was utilized. It is known that such an interview extends and formalizes conversation (Greeff, 1998: 297). The researcher chose an unstructured interview for the teacher participant as this allowed her to freely express her thoughts, feelings and experiences. Greeff (1998: 298) maintains that at the root of unstructured interviewing is an interest in understanding the experience of other people and the meaning they make of that experience. Furthermore this method is focused and discursive and allows the researcher and participant to explore an issue which in this instance was the changing role of a remedial teacher to a support teacher.
In the interview with the support teacher a single open-ended question was asked, namely, “What are your experiences as a support teacher?” According to Fouche (1998:
160), an open-ended question allows for a variety of responses. In addition, Greeff (1998: 293) believes that an open-ended question does not predetermine answers and allows the participant to respond in his/her own terms. When there was uncertainty, a probing question was asked, for example, “What do you mean?” According to Greeff (1998: 295) the purpose of probing is to deepen the response. It is a technique to persuade the participant to give more information about an issue under discussion.
This interview was tape recorded since it constitutes essential data and also so that the information could be accessed at a later time. Collins (1998: 8) mentions when events are recounted and experiences are described, it is made more substantial and more real through being recorded. This study through the interview process aimed to capture Mrs.
More’s experiences in her changing role from a remedial teacher to a support teacher through unfolding meaning of her experiences (De Vos, 1998: 292). In addition to the taped interview, the researcher also had verbal discussions with the support teacher as
well as telephonic conversations to clarify issues when necessary. The discussions usually lasted approximately one hour, and the telephone conversations lasted about ten minutes.
3.5.5.2 Focus group interviews
Kruger (quoted in Kingry, Tiedje & Friedman 1990: 124), defines the focus group as a carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment. Morgan (1997: 6) on the other hand describes focus groups as a research technique where data is collected through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. According to De Vos (1998: 305) focus groups are group interviews and a means of better understanding how people feel or think about an issue. The group is “focused” in that it involves some kind of collective activity.
Participants were selected because they have certain characteristics in common that relate to the topic of the focus group. The learner participants were put at ease by establishing rapport with them before the interview and by explaining to them how the interview would be conducted and by assuring them that all responses are important and valuable. A single open-ended question was posed to the focus group, namely, “How do you feel going to Mrs. More for extra lessons?” Morgan and Krueger (1998: 1) maintain what the participants in the group say during the discussions constitute the essential data in focus groups. Hence one can assume that the purpose of focus groups is to promote self-disclosure among participants. For Krueger and Casey (2000: 7), it is to know what people really think and feel.
Focus groups usually include six to ten participants. Ten participants were chosen to be in this focus group. Groups this size allow everyone to participate while still eliciting a range of responses. Morgan and Krueger (1998: 71) mention that deciding on the right number of participants means striking a balance between having enough people to generate a discussion, and not having too many to feel overcrowded.
To ensure that the interview process was effective the researcher followed the basic principles of interviewing as outlined by Bogdan and Bilken (1992: 174):
• Established rapport with participants through small talk before starting the interview;
• Informed participants of the purpose of the interview;
• Assured participants that their responses will be reported without their real identities being revealed;
• Used appropriate facial expression;
• Asked for clarification when a response was not clear; and
• Listened carefully.
3.5.5.3 Participant observation
The researcher also used participant observation in order to acquire first hand information and to enrich the understanding of phenomena of interest (De Vos, 1998:
80). Participant observation can be regarded as a research procedure that is typical of the qualitative paradigm (Strydom, 1998: 278). De Vos (1998: 278) describes participant observation as a qualitative research procedure that studies the natural and everyday setup in a particular community or situation. Denzin and Lincoln (2000: 673) maintain that participant observation is fundamental to all research methods.
According to Carrington and Elkins (2002: 53) observation of the teacher in the computer room presents a means of manageable analytical observation of the support processes provided and interactions, as well as allowing for some validation of information that was collected through the interview. For this study the researcher took the role of privileged observer, where the observer did not assume the role of participant, but had access to the lessons in the computer room. The aim was for the researcher to be less threatening to the learners in the computer room. According to De Vos (1998: 33) observation is applied as widely as possible in order to collect the richest possible data.
In this research participants were observed working on the computers on specifically chosen educational programmes. To avoid being intrusive, the researcher sat behind the
learners and made cursory notes, which were then expanded into fuller accounts (Cohen
& Manion, 1994: 109-112). With these cursory notes the researcher maintained a diary from which the researcher formulated an observation schedule.
The observation schedule comprised of the following questions:
a. How many children were supported in each session?
b. What did the content taught comprise of?
c. What support strategies were used?
d. What software was used for the intervention process?
e. How was each session organized?
3.5.5.4 Data analysis
Data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure and meaning to the mass of collected data (De Vos, 1998: 339). Both interviews, that with the support teacher and that with the focus group of learners were tape recorded and then carefully transcribed.
Marshall and Rossman (1995: 110-111) suggest that the process of preserving the data and meaning on tape and the combined transcription and preliminary analysis greatly increases the efficiency of data analysis.
The data from the interviews were analysed through systematic sorting. Transcripts were read closely to gain insight and objective perceptions of the participants’
experiences (Cohen & Manion, 1994: 293). Notes were made alongside the margins for easier categorizing. Topics were identified and listed. The researcher used open coding to identify possible themes. Open coding is the process of breaking down and examining data, contextualizing and categorizing data (De Vos, 1998: 345). Similar topics were clustered and labeled as themes. Categories were then identified for the themes. The researcher used Tesch’s approach to analyze the data (Poggenpoel, 1998:
343, 344). The interview with the support teacher, as well as the focus group interview, were analysed using Tesch’s method of open coding to reveal emerging themes (Tesch, 1990).
Document analysis of the assessment tests done at the end of 2005 were compared with those done at the end of 2006. This method was chosen because it is an unobtrusive source of information that can be accessed at a time convenient to me. Two tables were drawn up to document the results, one for English (Appendix B) and one for Mathematics (Appendix C), because the emphasis of the support programme is on these two areas. The table lists the participants by name (not their real names) and reveals their score in years and months for 2005 and 2006 as well as the progress (if any). The results of these assessments contribute towards the findings of this research and also reveal the effect the support facilitated.
3.5.5.5 Trustworthiness
Poggenpoel (1998: 348-351) proposes Guba’s model in ensuring trustworthiness by applying the following criteria:
• Truth value implies that the findings of this study are truthful.
According to Poggenpoel (1998: 348), in order to determine whether the information gathered from the participants was truthful, the researcher must establish a correlation between their verbal accounts and the analysis of the study. Data from the support teacher and the learners was gathered to form a chain of evidence. Multiple methods of data collection were used, that is interviews, observation and document analysis. Furthermore direct quotes were utilized as a chain of evidence when presenting the findings.
• Applicability of findings is when there is transferability to another context or setting. According to Poggenpoel (1998: 349) the focus is on describing the phenomena studied and by providing a thick description of the methodology, so that other researchers can do the same.
• Consistency refers to how repeatable the study might be with the same participants or in a similar context (Cresswell, 1994: 221). According to Poggenpoel (1998: 350), the findings would not be altered if the participants expressed the same opinions at another time in another research study. This is a unique context, as this school has put into place a system of support long before education policy dictated it.
• Neutrality refers to the freedom of bias in the research procedure and results (Poggenpoel, 1998: 350). To ensure neutrality the researcher posed a single question to the support teacher and a single question to the focus-group. The taped interviews were coded and recorded to elicit appropriate themes. An independent coder was used. There was agreement between the researcher and the independent coder regarding the themes that emerged.
3.5.5.6 Ethical issues
The fact that human beings are the objects of study brings unique ethical problems to the fore. Therefore De Vos (1998: 63) sees ethics as a set of moral principals that are suggested by an individual or group, and offers rules and behavioural expectations about the most correct conduct towards experimental subjects and respondents. Ethical clearance was gained from the university (Appendix G). The participants in the focus group interview were young so they were assured that no harm will come to them in any way and that at any point of the interview, they could withdraw their participation.
3.5.5.6.1 Informed consent
Informed consent is a necessary condition according to Hakim (2000: 143). Emphasis must be placed on accurate and complete information so that participants will fully comprehend the investigation. The researcher acquired informed consent from all participants. Informed consent means that participants were adequately informed of their participation to enable them to understand fully the investigation and its
consequences. This allows them to feel comfortable about their participation (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 1993: 479). Hakim (2000: 143) also feels that in informed consent emphasis must be placed on accurate and complete information so that participants will fully comprehend the investigation.
3.5.5.6.2 Confidentiality
According to Dane (1990: 51) confidentiality implies that only the researcher should be aware of the identity of participants.
3.5.5.6.3 Anonymity
Anonymity implies that no information provided by the participants would in any way reveal their identities (Cohen & Manion, 1994: 366). Anonymity also means that no one, including the researcher should be able to identify any participants afterwards (Babbie, 1990: 342). To ensure anonymity further, neither the name of the school, nor that of the support teacher or any of the learners used in the research, were mentioned.
The researcher also ensured that the tape recordings and all data collected were not accessible to anyone during the research nor after the research is complete.