5.6 DATA COLLECTION STRATEGIES
5.6.1 The Questionnaire as a source of Data
The questionnaire (Appendix D), was designed to elicit information with respect to the first two key research questions as indicated in Chapter One, namely,
1. What is the nature of Life Sciences teachers’ knowledge?
2. What is the nature of Life Sciences teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning of investigative practical work?
In addition, the responses from the questionnaire also complemented the other data collecting strategies.
174 (b) Structure and layout of the Questionnaire
To ensure that the questionnaire was appropriate, unambiguous and user-friendly, due cognisance was taken in the planning of the structure and layout of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was also designed in a way to ensure reliability and validity of the process, with particular emphasis on reducing the potential of bias. Babbie and Mouton (2001, p. 265) define bias as,
“The quality in questionnaire items that encourage respondents to answer in a particular way or to support a particular point of view”.
In an attempt to curtail the possibility of bias, questions were structured with clarity, so that all respondents could understand that the questions were posed in the same way.
Questions were phrased using simple and comprehensible language in an attempt to reduce the possibility of bias (McCracken, 1988). Also the instructions were clear, unambiguous and precise in order to maintain the interest and co-operation of the respondents (Preece, 1994). Prior to the commencement of the study, the questionnaire was given to Life Sciences teachers at a workshop that was conducted by myself during the normal course of my duty. This was an attempt at piloting the questionnaire in order to identify any difficulties or ambiguities that the study participants may encounter.
After studying the responses of teachers a few adjustments were made specifically with respect to terminology and language.
Once the adjustments were completed and before finalising the questionnaire three colleagues examined this draft of the questionnaire. All three colleagues were PhD students. These colleagues were asked to comment on ambiguity, imprecision, and assumptions. Minor modifications to the questionnaire with inputs from the evaluators were made in compiling a final version before administering it to the teacher participants for the study.
The resulting questionnaire (Appendix D) consisted of six A4 pages and was divided into three parts. While the questionnaire may be described as being open-ended, part A contained several short items or factual questions (Dörnyei, 2003) to elicit the biographical data of the teacher participant. Parts B and C contained open–ended items.
Part B was concerned with various aspects such as, the participant teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and practice of practical work. Questions in part B reflected aspects of the
175 theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Examples of such questions included: What do you understand by learners’ prior knowledge? and Do you think it is important for teachers to have an understanding of learners’ prior knowledge? Why? Part C related to the challenges and/or constraints that the teachers experience when implementing IPW.
This therefore allowed the participants to answer questions in their own words and to express any ideas they think apply since no choices or alternatives were provided (Struwig & Stead, 2001). To assist in this regard sufficient space was provided below the open-ended questions for the free expression of answers and comments by the participants (Cohen et al., 2007). Furthermore, it allowed the participants to express their ideas about the relevant phenomena freely and independently at their own pace.
(c) The Administration of the Questionnaire
The first visit to each school was arranged with the teacher participant. This was at a time during the day when s/he was not involved in teaching. During this first visit the principal was provided with the letter (Appendix C) seeking permission for the use of the site to gather data. In addition, a detailed verbal explanation about the study was provided to the principal by the researcher. Once the principal completed the consent form, the researcher held a discussion with the participant teacher, explaining the purpose of the research. After accepting and signing of the consent by the teacher the researcher discussed the completion of the questionnaire. At each site the teacher was also requested to provide the researcher with dates and times suitable to them for: an interview; a preliminary lesson observation and observation of a formal practical lesson.
The teachers completed the questionnaire at their own convenience, outside the teaching – learning environment. This was to prevent any undue disturbance to the normal teaching and learning programme at the schools.
The questionnaire was administered to all four teacher participants to complete in their own time. The researcher provided the participants with his contact telephone number should they encounter any queries during the completion of the questionnaire. The researcher allowed two days for the participants to complete the questionnaire whereupon he collected it from the teacher participants.
The responses to Part A of the questionnaire were tabulated into a Word document. This is presented as Table 5.2 in this Chapter. The responses from parts B and C were also tabulated for the purposes of individual as well as cross-case analysis.
176