CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.3 Methods
4.3.1 Quantitative Method
The quantitative mode of inquiry is based on the assumption that social reality has an objective ontological structure and that individuals are responding agents to this objective environment (Morgan & Smircich, 1980). The quantitative method entails measuring and assigning numbers to the perceived qualities of things (Babbie and Mouton, 2006). In this project the quantitative method is reflected through a statistical comparative analysis of coursework marks and a student evaluation.
4.3.1.1 Statistical Analysis
A statistical comparative analysis of the coursework marks of mainstream and extended curriculum programme students was conducted by the researcher. The coursework final scores of all the first-year humanities mainstream students and extended curriculum students were compared. The coursework marks consisted of all the tests, assignments, tutorials and the final examination marks which the students attained during the course of the semester. This approach was embarked on to “emphasize validity, reliability, generalisable findings, predictions of cause and effect and the testing of specific hypothesis” (Mudavanhu, 2008: p59). The high pass rates evident among the extended curriculum programme students illustrate the positive contribution of these tutorials to students‟ academic progress. The researcher was able to attain data pertinent to extended curriculum students tutorial attendance and their pass rates.
4.3.1.2 Student Evaluation
According to Monette, Sullivan and DeJong (1989: p08), “programme evaluation is the use of scientific research techniques to assess the results of a program and evaluate whether the program currently designed achieves its goals.” The evaluation used in this study was a formative evaluation. Formative evaluation allowed the researcher to monitor the final outcome of the tutorials. It also allowed the researcher to provide continuous feedback to the administrators of the programme about the issues that needed to be addressed within the programme (Neuman, 2003), to further enhance students‟ support in their and improve their learning experiences within the programme.
A students‟ evaluation was carried out by the researcher to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the tutorials directly from the students‟ perspectives. All the students were given an evaluation form (see Appendix B) to complete. The evaluation took place at the end of the semester two weeks before the last day of the semester tutorials. The students were asked to reflect on the impact of the tutorials in their academic lives. This gave the students a chance to evaluate their tutors‟ teaching performance and knowledge ability.
The evaluation was completely confidential and anonymous; hence, the students could reflect on or express their opinions (both positive and negative) about the programme.
They could do this without having to worry about their personal identities being associated with any specific response, especially where the responses were negative.
After the students were finished, the evaluation forms were submitted in a box and returned to the researcher.
4.3.2 Qualitative Method
Qualitative research shares the theoretical assumptions of the interpretative paradigm, which is based on the notion that social reality is created and sustained through the subjective experience of people involved in communication (Martveev, 2002). For the qualitative researcher, the aim is to better understand human behaviour and experience from the individual actor‟s perspectives (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007). In employing the
qualitative method in this study, the researcher was able to obtain information from the individual students and attend their tutorial lectures. This was possible through employing participatory observation and in-depth interviews as methods of gathering qualitative data.
4.3.2.1 Participatory Observations
A classroom participatory observation was conducted by the researcher to produce a full picture of the research context (see section 5.10). Participant-as-observer technique was chosen by the researcher as the best participant observational technique. This technique entailed revealing the researcher‟s status as an observer to the students in all extended tutorial lectures the researcher attended (Monette, et al, 1989). The researcher‟s choice of observational technique was informed by the fact that he was already known to some extended curriculum students as a master of social science student and as a mainstream tutor.
The “observation entailed the systematic noting and recording of events, behaviours and artifacts” (Marshall and Rossman, 1999: 107) taking place in the tutorial classes.
Participatory observation allowed the researcher to “record the mundane and remarkable (to participants‟) features…that [students] might not have felt that they were worth commenting on and the context within which they occur” (Green and Thorogood, 2004:
132). In the process of observation, the researcher paid attention to Denzin‟s major types of observable data, namely:
Expressive movements (facial expressions, bodily movements and postures),
Physical location (setting being observed and [the student‟s] personal space);
Language, personal behaviour (stuttering, slips of the tongue and topics of discussions) and
Time duration (duration of the tutorials under observation).
(Babbie, 2007)
The researcher felt that the types of observable data were important to determine the positive and negative experiences of students within the programme and the impact of these on personal and academic development. The observation was thus more of a holistic description of events and behavior taking place during the tutorials. This means that the observations were not guided by any checklist issues that the researcher was expecting to find, but entailed a systematic noting and writing down of what was taking place during the tutorials. The researcher attended a double tutorial in all seven disciplines. Through observation, the researcher was able to hear, see and begin to experience the tutorials as students do, whilst also gaining first-hand experience of the tutorials.
4.3.2.2 Face to face In-depth Interviews
Semi-structured in-depth interviews with twenty-one extended curriculum students (three students per discipline) were conducted. In order “to gain a broad range of students‟
opinions by asking them to assess [the extended curriculum tutorials] and their experiences [of the tutorials]” (Mudavanhu: 2008: p61). The survey schedule (see Appendix C) consisted only of open-ended questions and was administered by the researcher to the students. The students were able to give their answers verbally rather than in writing, as they might have “…experienced difficulties putting their ideas and thoughts into writing” (de Vaus, 1996: 110). The researcher could also provide clarity in some instances where students had difficulties in understanding the questions.
The interviews were ranging in duration from about 24 to 30 minutes. Using semi- structured in-depth interviews allowed for a structure and flexibility “thus promoting conversations and interaction between the interviewer and interviewee; [and also], allowed for the exploration of the research problem through the use of probes and participants‟ voices to be heard” (Aungamuthu, 2009: p46). The interviews broadly explored the student‟s experiences in the programme, the challenges and successes experienced, and the coping mechanisms adopted by the students to survive the shock of the tertiary environment – as well as their recommendations. The researcher had a one-
on-one interview session with each of the twenty-one extended curriculum programme students selected to participate during the in-depth interviews.
With the consent of the participants, the interview schedule and a recording device was utilised during the interview sessions. The use of the recording device gave the researcher an opportunity to sit and listen attentively to participants‟ responses during the interviews, and to record all the respondents‟ exact responses whilst also probing follow- up questions based on some emerging themes within the responses (Spradley, 1979).
The other survey schedule (see Appendix D), with semi-structured interview questions, was sent to the eight tutors from the seven disciplines in the humanities faculty involved in the extended curriculum tutoring programme. The researcher deliberately included the tutors in the research study to gain further understanding from a different perspective to those generally held by the students. Tutors were asked to share their experiences of the extended curriculum tutorials, such as the working environment, relationships with the students and with the other tutors. They were asked to share their perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the programme, the future of the programme and the changes that they would like to see taking place within the programme were investigated.