4.8. Overview of Data Collection
4.8.1. Secondary Data Collection
Secondary data is data which is obtained via second hand sources and could be in various forms such as questionnaires, surveys, pictures, documents or interviews (E. Smith & Smith Jr, 2008).
Field notes, semi-structured interviews and observations made by others can also form secondary data. In this study, secondary data was useful as this data was collected for similar intentions and could be directly linked to the objectives of this study. The secondary data used in this study are that of semi-structured interviews, semi-structured interview questionnaires, surveys and a self-evaluation checklist that participants had to fill in. The six forms of secondary data presented here are only for the selected schools in the Pinetown district. Schools in ILembe district have had no secondary data collected as they only became involved in the PILO initiative in 2018.
a) School Review 2015 (SR 2015)
The School Review 2015 (SR 2015) was a semi-structured interview questionnaire in which participants were able to evaluate what was working and what was not working in the usage of the curriculum planner and tracker tools. This instrument dealt with evaluating the extent to which teachers and HODs took ownership of the tools provided by PILO and to verify the extent of usage by looking at the tracker. Hence, the participants in this instrument were HODs and teachers. This review was conducted by a PILO coach assigned to the school. Only one of the three schools for Pinetown district, in this study, had participated in this school review which took place on 20 October 2015.
b) School Review 2016 (SR 2016)
The School Review 2016 (SR 2016) served a similar purpose to that of the School Review 2015. It consisted of a semi-structured interview questionnaire and was conducted with HODs.
In this study two schools of the three participated in this review. The purpose of this review was to engage with HODs to determine the usage of the CPT by Mathematics and Science teachers that they supervise in Grades 8 and 9, as well as in Grade 10-12. The data focused on was that of Grade 9 Mathematics as that was pertinent to this study. This instrument engages with the usage of the trackers by teachers and its impact on ensuring curriculum coverage. It also probed into reasons behind improved curriculum coverage or a lack thereof. It also sought
64
to uncover whether HODs are making use of monitoring tools and to what extent that is taking place. Lastly, this instrument allowed for the participant to provide feedback on challenges experienced, positive outcomes as well as areas for improvement and support should they felt they were needed. These reviews took place on 27 January 2016 at one school and on 28 November 2016 at another school.
c) Self-Evaluation 2016 (SE 2016)
The Self-Evaluation 2016 (SE 2016) was a checklist type document that was sent to schools involved in the Jika iMfundo initiative. This instrument looked at evaluating how the School Management Team (SMT) described where they are in terms of certain criteria. The criteria evaluated covered various areas such as monitoring and supervision, tracker usage, meetings with various stakeholders, record keeping and available resources. SMT involved in this self- evaluation had to tick the columns which described where they were with regards to a criteria or question that had been posed.
Fig. 4.1. Sample of the SE 2016
The way schools rated themselves was allocated by colour codes of Green, Amber and Red. If the SMT engaged with an activity routinely with confidence, it was Green. If they tried to do those activities but required help it was declared Amber and if they were unable to do those tasks it was declared Red.
The dates on which the Self-Evaluation took place varied as each school completed them at different times. Due to the fact that Self-Evaluations are filled in by the school and not done by an external person such as a PILO coach, it was difficult to verify whether the information provided was entirely accurate or if it was the way the school wanted to be perceived.
65 d) August Survey 2016 (AS 2016)
The August Survey 2016 (AS 2016) was a school survey on curriculum coverage, dealing with Grade 9 Mathematics as its focus area. This survey was conducted by PILO coaches across 89 sample schools which were randomly selected from a total of 1209 schools within the uThungulu and Pinetown districts. The AS 2016 formed part of the Jika iMfundo Monitoring Programme to ascertain how well the initiative is being received by the schools that have them.
The primary purpose of this instrument was to determine the extent of continued tracker usage and to determine how much of the curriculum had been completed in Term 2 of 2016. This survey focused on evaluating evidence by looking at learner books against the tracker exercise, looking at the DBE workbooks and checking how much of the tracker was filled versus what was claimed. Learner tasks were also compared against teacher record books such as the mark file.
This survey was flexible in that it allowed the participants to comment and give reasons for some of the observations being made when going through their documents. This instrument aims at helping Jika iMfundo with improving curriculum coverage by uncovering how much of the curriculum gets covered by looking at learner work. This form of secondary data also highlights the challenges experienced by those who deliver the curriculum, which were the teachers and it will enable the Jika iMfundo programme to gain insight in how to improve the assistance of teachers in curriculum management. This survey took place in two schools, the first school had the survey conducted on 26 August 2016. The second school had the survey conducted on 29 August 2016.
e) Semi-Structured Interview August 2017 (IA 2017)
An Interview took place in August 2017 at School C1 - Glen P5. The interview conducted took place with four participants. The interview was semi-structured and was used to probe into claims made in previous data collected for this school. This instrument was the transcript of the interview in which there were four participants. There were two male teachers and two female teachers. Codes were given to represent the interview and for each participant. Person A was the interviewer, Person B and D were Male 1 and Male 2 respectively and Person C and E were Female 1 and Female 2, respectively.
66 f) Interview Report 2017 (IR 2017)
The Interview Report 2017 (IR 2017) is an instrument which was conducted by another researcher who visited School A1 in 2017. The interview was semi-structured and took place on 10 August 2017 and the report was compiled after visiting the school and it outlined the outcomes of what took place at the interview. The participants in the interview were the HOD, a Grade 8 and 9 Mathematics teacher and a Grade 10 Mathematics teachers. This instrument contains field notes and observations mentioned in the report with key findings and recommendations.
This Interview Report could be beneficial in providing insight into the events taking place at the school which could influence their usage of the Jika iMfundo tools. It can also aid in providing us with the enabling factors and challenges being experienced at the school which play a role in using the curriculum planner and tracker. The IR 2017 may offer suggestions to enable improved utilisation of the curriculum planner and tracker as well as other monitoring tools provided by PILO.