are supposed to be doing. Nevertheless, I gave the detailed description of the purpose of the study. Unfortunately one of the educators took the advantage, and decided to give me a performance. Educator B repeated a lesson which she taught the previous day. The educator was revisited for a new lesson, the first lesson was not considered.
3.4.1 Observation
Qualitative case study uses a variety of methods for data collection and observation is the most important method. Cohen and Manion (1994) asserts that"... at the heart of every case study lies a method of observation" (p. 107). Some authors believe that observation can either be participative observation or non-participative observation (see for example Cohen and Manion, 1994). According to this view, a participative observation takes part in the activities uiat he/she observes. The other participants might consider the observer as one of the members of the group. In other words, his/her observation may be covert. A non-participant observer does not take part in the activities, he/she can sit at the back of a classroom writing down his/her observations.
Other authors consider observation as a continuum (see for example Burgess 1004 and Gold 1958). At one extreme of the continuum is a "complete participant observer" followed by a
"participant-as-observer" then an "observer-as-participant" and on the other extreme is a
"complete observer" (Lubisi, 2000:117). A complete observer is a non-participant observer.
It is said that the difference between a complete-participant observer and a participant-as- observer is that the former observes "covertly" and the latter observes "overtly". Whilst a participant-as-observer develops relationships with other participants the observer-as- participant does not develop long-term relationships with other participants (Lubisi, 2000). In this study, I was a participant-as-observer since I developed relationships with the participants but I was not taking part in the teaching process and my observation was overt.
Hopkins (1993) gives four methods of undertaking classroom observation: structured, systematic, focussed and open observation. A structured observation is said to be a collection of information by either using a tally system or a diagram. Closely related to this method is
the systematic observation, which uses coding scales. An example of systematic observation is the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) (Flanders, 1970). In the third type, the focussed observation, an observer focuses on a particular teaching technique, for example, questioning The details of these methods of observation is beyond the scope of this study.
The observation method which was found to be suitable for this study is the open observation.
In this method an observer records his observation including the interactions of the participants, description of the activities, the action and gestures of participants. These records form what is called the field notes. The field notes are raw data which form the initial stage of preliminary analysis. Hitchcock and Hughes (1989) suggest that writing field notes should follow a sequence of stages starting from the scribbled notes with key words or key phrases up to development of themes, patterns and recurring features. Hopkins (1993:116) has this to say about field notes:
• Field notes can reflect general impressions of the classrooms, its climate or incidental events.
• The field notes should be descriptive rather than speculative, so that a broad picture amenable to interpretation can be built up.
3.4.2 Interview
Interviews are often categorised into at least three types: structured, semi-structured and unstructured interview. These categories are determined by the degree of control over the interview exercised by the interviewer. For a structured interview, the interviewer prepares a questionnaire which often comprises of short and direct questions. The questions are usually looking for convergent answers - yes or no or short answers. As a result the structured interview is regarded as a "formal" or "controlled" interview (Gidden, 1993; Hitchcock and Hughes, 1989). In a structured interview a researcher strives to be objective by eliminating the human factor. Structured interviews are therefore appropriate for quantitative research.
Stenhouse (1984) concurs with this idea, "structured interviews are avoided in qualitative research" (Stenhouse, 1984 cited in Burgess, 1985:67).
semi-structured interview is more flexible than the structured one. It is flexible in the sensed that the interviewer is able to ask more questions beyond the planned questions or to probe for deeper understanding and the respondent (interviewee) can expand his/her responses (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1989). In the so-called "unstructured" interview the degree of flexibility is even more. It is sometimes called a "interview-as-a-conversation" (Burgess, 1984). Whyte (1982:11) cited in Hitchcock and Hughes (1989:86) warns us that
"unstructured" interview is a misnomer, since even the so-called "unstructured" does have a plan, "a genuinely non-directive interviewing approach is simply not appropriate for research".
In the present study, I employed both the semi-structured and unstructured interviews. But the interview was dominated by the semi-structured questions. Most authors suggest that a qualitative researcher should establish a rapport with the respondents (Yin, 1994; Hitchcock and Hughes, 1989). It is assumed that if the interviewer can develop good relationship with respondents, he/she can get a deeper and more meaningful information.
3.4.3 Documents
Documents which can be reviewed in a classroom research include educator's daily or weekly preparation, year planners, assessment records, learners' activities, notebooks, test books and other official documents. It is not possible to observe all the classroom activities, especially during a small project like the present study. Stake (1995:85) asserts that "documents serve as substitute for records of activities that the researcher could not observe directly". There , / *
seems to be a common understanding that documents provide a context for understanding a particular curriculum or teaching method (Hopkins, 1993; Themstrom, 1965; Woods., 1983 and Burgess, 1985). The documents will depict what is taught and how it is taught and also what is assessed and how it is assessed. What is assessed often determine the valuable knowledge. Eisner (1993:184) cited in Lubisi (2000:120) summarizes the importance of documents and the following statement "documents provide a kind of operational definition of what teachers value".