CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.4 Research instruments 32
After much deliberation on the merits of the various data collection instruments, I decided to use more than one source in order to facilitate the collection of data that would further the aims of the study. See the table 3.3.
33 Table 3.3 Match of data collection instruments to research questions
Data collection instrument RQ1 RQ2 RQ3
Attitudes questionnaire X X
Interviews X X X
3.4.1 Questionnaire
The rationale for using the questionnaire was to collect data from a larger group of participants, which deepened my understanding. Attitudes have been studied in various ways, with data collected from individual interviews, focus groups, diaries, observation and questionnaires. Since Fennema and Sherman conducted their research in the 1970s, questionnaires have become standard tools for assessing student attitudes. The Fennema- Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales (FSMAS) consist of a group of nine instruments. For the current study, I selected the (1) attitude toward success in Mathematics scale, (2) teacher scale, (3) mother/father scale, (4) attributing factors, (5) Mathematics anxiety scale, (6) effect and motivation scale in Mathematics, and (7) Mathematics usefulness scale. The number of statements per scale varied. Positive and negative statements were included in the scale, although these were not equivalent in number. The instrument uses Likert scales. The Likert Scale caters for a range of responses that exhibit varying degrees or intensities of feelings, thereby making it a more flexible tool that generates statistics that can be easily analysed. A five–point scale was used and the responses ranged from disagree strongly, to disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree and agree strongly. Learners were asked to place a ‘cross’
in the appropriate column. An example was provided for the learners to use as a guide in responding to the statements in the questionnaire. In the event of positively phrased items the values ranged from 5 for ‘strongly agree’ to 1 for ‘strongly disagree’ while a value of 5 for
‘strongly disagree’ to 1 for ‘strongly agree’ was assigned to each negatively phrased item. It is important to note that a high score on the FSMAS indicates a low level of Mathematics anxiety; therefore adding the values to calculate the total score could be used to reveal the levels of anxiety of the learners. The adapted FSMAS questionnaire is presented in Appendix A. The questionnaire solicited data to answer the first two research questions of the study.
The questionnaire elicited responses that were analysed quantitatively.
3.4.2 Interview 34
The focus group interview was conducted over a single one-hour session. The interview was conducted with provision being made for any participant to withdraw from the study at any point. The interview served to generate rich data, which the questionnaire had failed to do, thus enhancing the quantitative data (Murray and Beglar, 2009). Interviews provide the researcher with the opportunity to obtain in-depth answers and to clarify responses (Bell, 1993). They provide respondents with the opportunity to express their interpretations of the world of Mathematics. Group interviews bring together learners with differing perceptions and minimise the intimidation factor that is present in individual interviews. The success of a group interview is dependent on many factors. They require the interviewer and the respondents to work together. The context should be relaxed and the interviewer trustworthy so that the respondents will be encouraged to respond truthfully. The power differential between the participants of the focus group and I were diminished as I was not their Mathematics teacher and furthermore I do not occupy a management position at the school.
The learners that participated in the interview felt comfortable to express their views as they realised that there would be no implications since I am not their Mathematics teacher.
Further to this the participants were requested to select a venue of their choice for the interview. The decision of the learners to have the interview conducted in the Biology laboratory which I used to conduct my Life Sciences lessons provided me with sufficient assurance that they were as comfortable as possible and would therefore respond freely. The main purpose of the focus group research was to draw upon respondents’ experiences on the strategies that they, as successful Mathematics achievers, use to overcome the factors that could impede their performance in Mathematics. According to Cohen et al. (2007), interviews will differ from one to the other, depending on factors such as mutual trust, social distance and how the interviewer controls the interview. To avoid any misconceptions, I had to ensure that communication was sincere and that the purposes were apparent to the respondents. The questions for the interview were standardised and open-ended and it was hoped that they would elicit the responses that would provide any missing links in the investigation.
Copies of the interview questions were given to the learners half an hour prior to the commencement of the interview so that they would have the time to go through the questions.
The learners were told that they could jot down their thoughts and ideas if they wished to.
Although they were not compelled to write responses on the interview sheet, they were
35 requested to fill in their personal details and to hand them in at the end of the interview, irrespective of whether they had written down something or not. The participants’ personal details were necessary in order to correlate the interview sheets with the transcripts of the interview during analysis. The learners’ notes on the interview sheets helped to verify what they had said. It was also hoped that the notes would dissuade learners from simply going along with what others in the group were saying. The interview sheet also gave learners an opportunity to write down what they possibly did not want to say in the presence of the group. Knowing their names provided me with the opportunity to ask further questions subsequent to the interview. The interview sheets were collected from the learners at the end of the interview. The group interview was recorded on audiotape. This allowed me to focus on the interview, rather than on manually recording what was said. It also prevented gaps in the data collected. Recording the data enabled me to ask probing, follow-up questions not accounted for in the pre-set interview questions and to accurately transcribe the interview at a later stage.
Sensitive questions concerning learners’ perceptions about Mathematics were being investigated and it was imperative that learners respond truthfully. This required me to be honest and approachable, and to create a climate of trust and respect for and between them.
At the end of the session, the tape was played back to the group so that they could clarify their statements further. Learners were then thanked for participating in the interview and for their honest responses. Copies of the interview questions and the interview transcripts are provided in Appendix B. The data solicited from the interviews enabled me to clarify the responses to the questionnaire and to provide answers to the second and third research questions.