In order to commence with any research of a qualitative nature, participants are needed from whom to gather data and information in order to understand the phenomena under investigation. Sampling and sampling procedures involve the selection of participants and how that selection took place.
Six schools are involved in this study. The sample size for this study consists of eight participants for primary data collected in 2018. Four of the six schools had one participant each, which was either an HOD or an teacher teaching in Grade 9, whilst the remaining two schools had both an teacher and the HOD participating. There are two sampling procedures used in this study. This study uses purposive sampling and convenience sampling in order to select participants for the research study. Purposive sampling is selecting participants in a way that is
59
non-representative of a larger population and satisfies a specific need or purpose based on the objectives of the study (Christensen et al., 2015). For a purposive sample, the researcher uses their own judgement in selecting participants that are most likely to suit the objectives of the study. Purposive and convenience sampling are non-probability techniques of obtaining a sample which is most useful when a researcher cannot use randomisation to pick a sample.
Convenience sampling, which according to Etikan, Musa and Alkassim (2016) can also be called haphazard sampling or accidental sampling, involves non-probability sampling where participants for the sample are selected on the basis of convenience for the researcher.
Convenience could be due to those of a practical nature such as geographical proximity, access to resources, time constraints and availability and the likelihood of involvement by participants in the study to be conducted.
4.6.1. Purposive Sampling
This study had requirements in which random sample could not take place. In order to fit the purpose of this study, non-probability methods of sampling had to take place in order to ensure that suitable participants would be involved in the study. The first sampling procedure was that of purposive sampling. Purposive sampling in this study involved a specific grade chosen, Grade 9 only. It involved selecting participants for the sample based on their being Grade 9 Mathematics Teachers and being an HOD of Mathematics. It involved selecting districts in which one district had exposure to the tracker and the other did not. It also involved selecting schools based on various quintiles to learn more about curriculum coverage occurring over a wide spectrum of school contexts.
The chosen schools came from the Pinetown and iLembe districts. The choice of the districts was twofold: one district was part of the piloted project and teachers had been exposed to curriculum tracker for a period of three years. In addition, it forms part of the district from which preliminary findings were drawn. The second district is new in the programme and no data had been collected regarding tracker usage. Therefore, Pinetown district and iLembe districts were selected.
The selections of schools per district was informed by categorisation in terms of quintiles.
According to Etikan et al. (2016), this form of purposive sampling falls under Maximum Variation Sampling (MVS). The idea behind MVS is that it provides a greater level of understanding by looking at more than one angle for the study being undertaken. In this case
60
looking at schools from varying quintiles. Three schools in each district were selected with each school belonging to a different quintile ranging from Quintile 1 to Quintile 5. Schools selected from each district must consist of a mix of non-fee paying and fee-paying schools.
Schools are categorised into quintiles based on the wealth or economic status of the surrounding areas. In view of this Quintile 1 would be viewed as the poorest school receiving the greatest funding from the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and Quintile 5 would be considered the most affluent, receiving the least funding from DBE. Quintiles are in place to ensure some equity in funding of schools based on economic and social factors within surrounding communities. Selecting schools of different quintile ratings ensures a wide spectrum of experiences from different settings that could potentially play a role in tracker usage in schools. Quintile 1, Quintile 2 and Quintile 3 schools are considered to be rural and depend solely on funding from the Department of Basic Education. These schools are non-fee paying in view of the socio-economic backgrounds of the learners attending these schools and the economic status of the surrounding area. Quintile 4 and Quintile 5 schools are considered urban school environments. These schools are fee-paying schools and receive the least funding from the DBE. As a result of the limited funding, these schools need to obtain school fees in order to manage the day to day running of the school and the purchase of teaching and learning resources.
In Pinetown district, the selected schools were those that participated in at least two out of five data collection process stages since 2015. The selected schools would have participated in any two out of the following: a School Review conducted in 2015, a Self-Evaluation in 2016, an August Survey in 2016, School Review 2016 and interviews in 2017. At ILembe district the selection was only based on quintiles since it is the first-time teachers in that district are making use of the curriculum planner and tracker.
Purposive sampling allows the researcher to purposely select the participants who have in- depth knowledge about the phenomena (Cohen et al, 2011). Therefore, schools in the Pinetown district have extensive knowledge of the usage of the curriculum planner and tracker, while ILembe is new in the project. However, by the time data collection resumes they would have had at least half a year to use the tracker. The findings from this district provided a source of rich data in understanding the extent to which the challenges and enabling factors are evolving.
It also enabled the researcher to uncover whether there in progress in the utilisation of the
61
curriculum planner and tracker in those two districts and what has allowed for improved utilisation or a lack thereof.
4.6.2. Convenience Sampling
Convenience sampling was used as an additional method of sampling for this study. In this sampling procedure the sample population was easily accessible to the researcher (Etikan et al., 2016). In this study, convenience sampling was used in terms of the way in which the schools were chosen. For schools in the Pinetown district, convenience sampling was used to ensure the least amount of travelling time between schools. The ability to travel to these three schools and manage time most effectively, to be able to go and collect data at all three schools on the same day, led to choosing those schools. Schools were also chosen based on being able to make appointments with them via mobile communication at the convenience of participant and researcher.
Schools in the ILembe district were also chosen based on proximity but it was also due to knowing the participants. By knowing some of the participants personally, it guaranteed their willingness to meet outside of school hours to conduct interviews and collect data. This prevented some of the limitations in data collection where participants might not have time to accommodate the researcher or are unwilling to participate. Some of the data collection for these schools could take place outside working hours at a more flexible time. Convenience sampling then becomes useful to ensure the researcher can collect data at their convenience and the most likelihood of obtaining data.