Case Study Approach

This study adopts a case study approach, “to explore in depth a program, an event, an activity, a process, or one or more individual” (Creswell 2009, p.13). Gerring (2004, p.342) points out that academics’ attempts to clarify the definition of case studies has resulted is a “definition morass”. However, a much sited definition is of Yin (1994, p.13) were he defines a case study as “an in depth inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context.” Yin (1994) distinguishes between different case studies, in which this classification is based on number, design and types, and Stake (1995), who classifies cases based on the nature of inquiry. Case studies have been classified based on number and design, single case or multiple case; holistic or embedded, and type; explanatory, exploratory and disruptive by Yin (1994). Single case design aims at understanding a unique or extreme event, whereas multiple case studies present different cases to find similarities and differences among them. Single-case study design is, generally, criticized because of the uniqueness of the case investigated; data collection might not reveal whether this case is

unique or critical. Therefore, a single case study design requires the researcher to investigate critically the characteristics of the case in order to maximize the chances of understanding the uniqueness of the case. On the other hand, multiple case study design has the benefit of contrasting and comparing and may offer a more general view of a phenomenon. However, in multiple case research, the unique cases being investigated can be analysed within each setting and across settings, which would be time consuming and expensive to conduct. As far as design is concerned, a holistic case study is concerned with understanding the global nature of a phenomenon in a context, where it has a single unit of analysis. One of the disadvantages of a holistic case study design is its inability to penetrate to deeper levels of the case to reach specific phenomenon in operational details. Embedded case study design, on the other hand, is when more than one unit of analysis is involved, in which attention is given to sub-units as well as the main unit of analysis. Embedded design is powerful when the aim of the study is to understand a phenomenon in context with different variables. Case studies are also classified based on type as explanatory, which seeks to understand real-life interventions that are too complex to explain through surveys. Exploratory case studies are used to explore situations where the interventions being evaluated have no single, clear set of outcomes. Descriptive case study design attempts to describe a phenomenon or an intervention within its real-life context (Yin 1994). However, Stake (1995) classifies case studies based on the nature of the purpose as previously stated:

● Intrinsic case study: carried out to gain a better understanding of the case, and not that of the uniqueness of the case in itself. The focus is on the relevant interest of the case to the researcher.

● Instrumental case study: the focus of study is not on the case itself; it is used rather to clarify our understanding of something else. There is a thin line between intrinsic and

instrumental case studies, as Stake (1995) points out what distinguishes one from another is the separate purpose of the case.

● Collective case study: as the name implies, it is the study of a number of individual cases within a context; the main aim is to generalize a theory over a large number of cases.

This study was an embedded multiple case study that was exploratory, explanatory, and descriptive in nature. It might be seen as an intrinsic case study. It sought to understand the impact of training on the participants’ teaching practice through examining their classroom instruction in the university and school context. The use of a case study approach was valuable in that it could contribute to developing a theory, evaluation of the program, and development of the intervention.

The nature of the research question in the study required a deep understanding of the participants’ views and attitudes to be explored through the analysis of qualitative data. In particular this study has a strong focus on attitudinal orientation towards ICT use and covering teachers’ affective, behavioural and cognitive reflections on the use of technology. Although the study of teaching beliefs and ICT use is helpful in its own right (see for example Ertmer 2005) in order to provide a clearer and more focused study this study is bounded by an interest attitude rather than the much wider notion of belief.

The researcher agrees with Ulin et al. (2004) on qualitative methodologies, that they are more concerned with in-depth understanding though qualitative, as a concept does not rule out the use of simple surveys, the counting of data, and its representation in tables. To qualitative purists, however, the study does not seem to fall completely in one particular paradigm. In fact this is not unusual, for as McNiff, et al. (2003) point out, action research can be defined as a method that is directed at developing greater understanding and

improvement of practice over a period of time; it is not defined by the use of particular tools. Although this was not strictly action research based, a similar flexibility was shown in this study. One final consideration in designing the study was that as with action research I had a dual role of being the trainer and the researcher. The trainer role offered some opportunities for me to get closer to the participants and show flexibility in supporting the use of ICT but of course presents difficulties in distancing myself from the data.