Chapter 4: Methodology
4.2 Qualitative approach
In order to implement and study a mastery system, a quantitative approach was initially adopted. It became evident, over time, that to implement a mastery system, the research of motivational factors required a more qualitative methodology.
Because different paradigms exist simultaneously, it is possible for the same researchers to draw on more than one paradigm, depending on the kind of work they are doing. (Terre Blanche and Durrheim 1999: 7)
It became apparent that the students did not perceive the mastery learning system as beneficial or interesting at that stage in their course. They were under extreme pressure from the other subjects that they were studying and many of them had personal issues that impacted on their lives during 2004. The research presented rich data on them as
individuals, on what motivated them, and on how their backgrounds impacted on their studies. The following quote from Terre Blanche and Durrheim (ibid: 3) which prompts research to look "beyond the empirical evidence" to understand how a mastery system should be presented so as to most effectively help students, illustrates this point:
All research accounts are based on empirical data, and this is what methodology textbooks properly focus on. However, we can only partially understand accounts of the world by
referring to the facts and must look beyond empirical evidence to the background
knowledge that makes the evidence believable. (Terre Blanche and Durrheim 1999:3).
They continue to explain that in circumstances where "the reality to be studied consists of people's subjective experiences of the external world" (ibid: 6), it is quite legitimate for a researcher to adopt a more "intersubjective or interactional epistemological stance towards that reality" (ibid), making use of such methodologies as interviewing or participant observation, which is characteristic of the interpretative approach. Such an approach "aims to explain the subjective reasons and meanings that lie behind social actions" (ibid).
An interpretivist researcher would therefore have the following stance:
• Ontology: the reality that is being studied is the internal and subjective experience of each student.
• Epistemology: the researcher is involved and empathetic with the students. It is possible to get to know a group of eight students well.
• Methodology: Qualitative data would be collected through semi-structured interviews.
4.2.1 Semi-structured interview
Generally a distinction is made between three types of face-to-face interviews, as
confirmed by Bell (1994) and Wragg (2002). These are the structured, the semi-structured and the unstructured interview. Wragg (ibid: 148) suggests that structured interviews are best used when a lot of questions are asked that are not particularly contentious or thought- provoking, whereas semi-structured interviews are more appropriate where the
investigation 'requires more profound deliberation'. He explains that the semi-structured interview is normally guided by a 'carefully worded interview schedule' (ibid: 149) but the interviewer may ask additional probing questions and make notes along the way, allowing the respondent to speak at length but within the parameters of the questions asked.
The selection of the semi-structured interview as one of the data collection tools in this study was guided by the following considerations:
• its adaptability and flexibility (Bell 1994): interviews can be adapted to time and place, and the interviewer can follow up ideas, probe responses and enable respondents to exercise greater control of the topic.
• Sensitivity and enrichment of data: the semi-structured interview allows for the expression of feelings which can be considered as positive aspects of the context and can affect interpretations (Mills 2001).
• Language barriers: many students in the group had English as a second language. The semi-structured interview would allow more flexibility for the student to understand the question and respond to it.
An interview schedule was developed, broadly covering five aspects that were judged pertinent to the research questions stated in Chapter 1, in particular questions four and five. The semi-structured interview permitted further questions to be asked to clarify the topics, as necessary. The interview schedule is in Appendix C. The aspects covered are:
Personal details: This aspect included information on student's educational background, previous qualifications and work experience.
Pre-test: Provided a record of the student's pre-test marks and their comments on how they felt about the pre-test and whether they felt improvement in these competencies would be useful.
Computer literacy and access: This aspect probes the student's ability to access the internet from both infrastructural and computer literacy points of view.
Mastery programme: The usefulness, the level of difficulty and other areas that may have been helpful were discussed for each area of learning.
Quantity Surveying subject: This aspect included the extent to which the mastery programme has been helpful in the quantity surveying subject.
4.2.2 Conduct of interviews
The eight fourth year students of 2004 were interviewed on a one-on-one basis, towards the end of the academic year. These interviews took place in the computer laboratory while the other students were using the mastery programme. The responses, based on the five aspects described above, were compiled and analysed.