RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.2 METHODOLOGY
3.2.5 Research Instruments
Institution given names
INSTITUTION 1
INSTITUTION 2
INSTITUTION 3
INSTITUTION 4
Total
Number of white facilitators as
participants 2
(Respondent 1a &
Respondent 1b)
1
(Respondent 2a only)
1
(Respondent 3a only)
None 4
Number of African facilitators as
participants
None None 1
(Respondent 3b only)
1
(Respondent 4a only)
2
Number of Indian facilitators as
participants
None None None 1
(Respondent 4b only)
1
Number of coloured facilitators as
participants
None 1
(Respondent 2b only)
None None 1
Number of learners as participants
10 (4 White, 3 Indian and 3 African)
10 (4 Indian, 4 African and 2 White)
10 (5 White, 3 African and 1 Coloured)
10 (6 African, 2 White and 2 Indian)
40
Total number of participants
12 12 12 12 48
According to Potter (2002, p.124), “literature is not the only way to find out about the topic in a particular subject. The quickest way to find ‘where things are at’ is to ask someone who will understand. Talking to people who are very familiar with the topic is an excellent way to speed up finding out how things happened”. However, “there are many other methods of contacting people namely, conferences, interviews, organising workshops, giving a seminar, setting up a computer conference and the Internet” (Potter, 2002, pp.125-6).
This study used the observation schedule (with the same issues that are indicated in Appendix IV) and the semi-structured interview instruments (Appendix IX) during the workshops and five days later after the workshops.
They became the most suitable instruments (primary data) because the researcher used a case study approach.
After the workshops two questionnaires (Appendix IV & V) were prepared because of the large geographical distance between the researcher and most of the four universities (Appendix V). The questionnaires were also used for triangulation purposes. The study began by piloting these instruments as suggested by Anderson (1993). He recommends that in order to assess the validity of the research instruments, and to check on the nature of the instruments, one needs to pilot the instruments to be used.
A document analysis was also included in the data collection plan. Student files, facilitators files, course notes and journals.
The instruments were administered more than once in some cases which indicated that data collection is not just a once off event, but it is a process.
According to Creswell (1998) data collection is a series of interrelated activities aimed at gathering good information to answer emerging research questions.
The study engaged a series of activities in the process of collecting data.
Creswell (1998) even suggests that any study undergoes the processes of locating site or individuals, gaining access and establishing rapport, sampling, collecting data, recording information, resolving field issues and storing data. As a result of these processes it was difficult to motivate certain participants who
did not have the time to participate fully because of other commitments. But, the study was managed under these processes to collect data using the instruments (as discussed below) for primary data.
3.2.5.1 Observation schedule
Golafshani (2003) recommends that interview and observation methods are dominant in the naturalistic (interpretive) paradigm and Eisner (1991) says that observation is a qualitative method of collecting data (Eisner, 1991). Based on these two recommendations it was important to use the scheduled observation sessions (most of the items that were observed were the same as that of the questionnaires) and it even became evident that the researcher played a role in the setting, in addition to the research. Specifically, the researcher operated as a privileged observer in some cases. The researcher operates as a privileged observer, because the eight facilitators acknowledged the researcher as one of them. Therefore, the access into the facilitators’ WBTL environments was easy.
The observation was useful because it was easy to watch the setting unfolding.
Denzin and Lincoln (2003b) believe that one cannot study the social world without being a part of it. So one of the ways to achieve this was to use the observations which, Denzin and Lincoln (2003a) contend, imply simultaneous emotional involvement and objective detachment.
Each member from the sample was observed at least once. This means that all the participants were observed, when using the Web in teaching and learning.
The observation was used to collect data in order to answer all the questions that have to do with the ‘how’ part of the study. In other words any question from the study that came with ‘how’ was answered by means of the observation.
3.2.5.2 Semi-structured interview ( )
The semi-structured interviews were used to collect data in order to answer all the questions for this study that have to do with the ‘why’ parts of the study. The semi-structured interviews follow the observation, where the participants were asked questions in order to clarify why they were doing or using what they were doing or using. The reasons for using the semi-structured interviews were that they allow in-depth collection of data to be achieved. In-depth data is achieved,
because they provide an opportunity to probe and expand the respondents’
responses. They allowed this study to alter the sequences in order to probe more deeply; this was also observed by Fourie (2000). They also helped to cope with those respondents that seemed to have a tendency to avoid certain questions. As a result the semi-interviews were open-ended because it was free to employ some questioning techniques such as rephrasing, paraphrasing and probing when the need arose.
3.2.5.3 Questionnaires ( )
The questionnaire (developed similar themes to those observed and used during the scheduled observation) was used because most of these participants were far away from the researcher, to triangulate and to answer all the questions of this study that have to do with the ’what’ parts of the study.
The questionnaire was also used because it was prepared to measure facts, motivation and knowledge (Pettigrew, Fidel & Bruce, 2001). This means the different types of questions that were used were factual, motivational and knowledge questions. A combination of open and closed questions was used. It was used in order to allow each and every participant to respond at least to certain questions. Specific questions that were included were rating questions, dichotomous and filter questions as well as follow up. They formed part of the main questions.
The open types of questions were included specifically to capture the respondents’ ideas spontaneously in their own words. On the other hand closed questions (in form of rating) were included in order to focus immediately on details. Fourie (2000) observed that most of the population has the intellectual ability to answer the closed or rating types of questions. Therefore, the questions tried to accommodate even the respondents that were shy, those that did not have much time and those who do not express their opinion easily. The questionnaire was found to be less time-consuming.
However, the researcher had to be careful of the primary disadvantages of the instrument especially the questionnaires as indicated by Govender (2001). He
indicated that “the primary disadvantages of the questionnaire[s] are non- returns, misinterpretation, and validity problems” (Govender, 2001, p.204). It was found that although these disadvantages were in existence, they were managed.
The participants were contacted and checked most of the time if they had time to answer all the questions to avoid the non-return problems. In terms of the misinterpretation the study had to involve only the technical / educational terminology (which can be easily understood by the participants as they were observed) for the Web. The questionnaires were also used after everything had been observed to avoid the validity problems.
3.2.5.4 The second questionnaire ( )
The questionnaire which includes both the facilitators and learner (Appendix V) was used for triangulation purposes and for getting students’ views as well. This questionnaire helped in establishing whether the data that was collected from the facilitators was consistent. The first questionnaire only collected data from facilitators.
3.2.5.5 Document analysis
Initially, the study was going to use reflective journal as a powerful tool for thinking about what was observed as suggested by Fraenkel and Wallen (1996). But it was decided to use document analysis, because reflection was going to come as part of the data analysis (Chapter 4). But the study needed another method that was going to work as another primary source for triangulation. Then the document analysis method was applied which ended up working as a primary source because it provided useful data from the primary participants for triangulation. Student files, facilitator’s files, course notes and journals were analysed to collect more data for triangulation purposes. The data from this instrument was used in order to establish the causes of inconsistencies within data collected from the other instruments.