The Case Study Approach

The study is focussed on an explanatory, exploratory and descriptive interrogation (Yin, 2003) of facilitation of English literacy in the GNFLP. It adopted a case study approach (CS) to develop an understanding of the phenomenon of facilitation and also build expertise (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Stake, 2003). CS permits the use of a variety of data collection methods: documentary review, observation and semi-structured interviews (initial and follow-up interviews). This enabled the development of a holistic understanding. The CS also afforded me an interpretative and subjective framework to see through the eyes of the participants whilst engaging with them to understand the world of adult literacy facilitation in full detail (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). It allows for the study of one aspect of a problem into detail as well as a stage of development in an institution or a new role - e.g. a state of reduced funding and the new policy of ALO facilitation of English literacy instead of organizing for local language literacy facilitation (Bell, 2010). This provided me an opportunity to observe the facilitators and their learners interacting in the real context in order to identify all the essential features of their facilitation practices and contexts (Denscombe, 2007). In addition, it afforded me the opportunity to match

the observed behaviour against responses given by the ALOs in the interview (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011). This ensured drawing research conclusions based on direct observation rather than only retrospective interaction with participants as would have been the case from only interviews (Yin, 2004).

In sum, through the use of CS I was able to record data systematically and thoroughly and take field notes that were later used to identify issues concerning the facilitators’ personal practical knowledge and their accounts of it. As asserted by Denscombe (2007: 36), CS enabled me to ‘illuminate the general by looking at the particular, thus discovering and getting valuable and unique insights’ that might not have become apparent through more superficial research.

It is acknowledged that using this multi-method CS approach, in this instance observation, interview and documentary review could present several challenges such as the overwhelming and rich data generated (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011) and given my own professional involvement in the phenomenon and indeed the setting, a danger of distortion (Bell, 2010). I therefore practised the ability to analyse data while collecting it during a pilot study as I was aware of the need to undertake much selecting and ordering of the rich data (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Yin, 2004). The pilot also enabled me to identify my weaknesses and learn lessons for the main study. The CS approach also required I mastered the study’s substantive issues, exerting patience and commitment while collecting the data.

3.4 The Case

My interest in pursuing this study comes from my professional position of curriculum developer and belief in effective facilitation as an important input into relevant curriculum and instructional materials development and successful adult literacy programmes. This is a collective case study involving investigating ‘the same research question(s) within a number of contexts, using identical methods of data collection and analysis…[and] individual units of study, then, or cases, are examined in situ and can be considered as a collective whole for the analysis phase (Goddard, 2010:164). The collective case here then isthe facilitation of adult literacy within the GNFLP, which is built up from the individual cases of a selection of facilitators.

Thus facilitation undertaken by individual ALOs in six literacy classes were selected as a case to investigate and to understand at first-hand facilitation. The focus in my study was therefore the individual ALO’s facilitation of English literacy learning by adults with no or limited literacy in the first language under current policy and logistical contexts. The case was also about exploring the coping strategies and innovations that might or might not be brought to bear.

3.5 Sampling

The purpose of the qualitative approach in this study is to explore the actions and experiences of the key actors; ALOs who were part of the implementation of English literacy learning in order to expose the interesting practices and innovations that might be unfolding at the class level and also to understand the stories behind these experiences. It was important to choose a study population that was information rich on facilitation (Patton, 1990). Issues such as cost, time and access to participants prevented me from studying the whole population (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Patton, 1990). Purposeful sampling was therefore adopted in order to focus on facilitation and illuminate on the specific questions under study (Patton, 1990). Since the purpose was to provide depth to facilitation issues rather than breadth, a criterion based purposeful sampling technique was adopted (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Patton, 1990). A pre-determined criteria of importance guided the selection of 6 classes and their ALOs as follows:

1. Be staff of the NFED for at least 5 years in the municipality. 2. Been part of the implementation of the new policies. 3. Leading the facilitation of English literacy in an active class.

In addition, the study sought to include both male and female ALOs. The sample therefore included 6 out of 1200 staff facilitators nationwide chosen from one out of the 10 regions and one district out of the 130 nationwide. The region in the south of Ghana was selected based on information accessed indicating that all the ten regions of Ghana had English literacy classes being led by ALOs with at least five years’ experience as staff; meaning they had been organizers for volunteers before. The choice of this region in the south instead of one in the north was as a result of my being a distant student combining

work with study who could not afford to be away from work for continuous long periods of time for data collection and therefore had to attempt to minimise cost, travel and study time. The selection of the research site also drew on my own insider knowledge that the region has both male and female ALOs leading active English literacy classes just as in any of the other nine regions of Ghana. For reasons of saving time and cost, I chose to sample the nearest municipality to the regional capital as I was aware it had 2 serving female and 4 male ALOs who fitted the sampling criteria.

Although the case was about English literacy facilitation, my familiarity with the local languages spoken in the southern part of Ghana aided my understanding of issues raised during the study. This was of much relevance to me as a researcher in this study because I share cultural background with the participants which led to us understanding each other.

Facilitation observation was undertaken in six classes and interviews conducted with the six facilitators. Attempts were made to cover four male and two female facilitated classes in order to bring some gender dimensions to the case. I chose to interview only two female facilitators and observe two female classes because ALOs in the NFED are predominantly male but not by any design. The selection of the ALOs for both classroom observation and interviewing was achieved in collaboration with the municipal coordinator since he knew which classes met regularly and were active. He also knew their meeting times. Notice was taken of some possible bias as the coordinator might have wanted to present his or her best classes to be studied. He/she might have considered this visit as an evaluation of his/her staff members’ performance. However, possible biased selection of the best classes could favour the study as it would demonstrate all the best practices. Despite the perceived evaluation, the ALOs were cooperative in the study. The last level of the NFED visited was the communities in the municipality where the six classes were observed.

The sites visited involved cooperation of five administrative levels in the structure of the NFED. At my request, the national director of the NFED wrote a letter to the regional coordinator, with a copy given me, requesting him to offer me all the necessary support. The first point of call on arrival in the region was the regional office where the regional coordinator, the senior NFED administrator is located. His permission and support were

sought to undertake the study in one of the districts in the region. The letter from the national director facilitated my access to the participants. My position as a senior staff member and the letter from the head of the NFED gave me an advantage in gaining access.

I chose to observe the facilitation activities of each of the six ALOs once; each lasting approximately 2 hours to give me a snapshot impression of the classroom culture, what activities facilitators undertake to ensure their learners collaborate with them to acquire literacy. A lesson is normally facilitated in several meetings and at the pace of the learners. However, as the focus of the study was facilitation, any lesson or section dealt with was observed. However, observing them once only could also be a limitation, as observing a whole lesson would have given more insight but for reasons explained earlier, this was impossible. I therefore had to rely on the interview to corroborate the gaps identified in the facilitation observation.

3.6 Piloting

The importance of piloting the tools in case study research and how that can enhance the quality of the data obtained is important (Cohen et al., 2011; Denscombe, 2007; Flyvbjerg, 2006). A pilot observation and interview therefore began the field work in another southern region of Ghana which aimed at sharpening my research skills and finding out the strength of my approach, the clarity of the guiding questions and the responses they elicited. Considering my participants as busy people, I determined to test the length of the data collecting instruments and practise interviewing and class observation skills.

The pilot interview lasted one hour 17 minutes and brought out the need for me as a researcher to improve on the skill of establishing rapport with participants. Coupled with this was my inability to phrase the subsequent questions quickly while actively listening, balancing listening with being quick in asking the next question was an area that I noted needed perfecting. I also realized that my skills at on-the spot thinking were seriously tested and needed improvement. The research sub-question 3 (What theories of learning underpin the facilitation of ALOs?) was difficult to address even after repetitions and explanations. This taught me that questions requiring conceptualisations may be

asked indirectly enabling the researcher to construct theory from responses generated. Since my study was aimed at only shedding light on facilitation as practised in the GNFLP by ALOs, the question was therefore expunged from the list of questions to be addressed.

Furthermore, during the class observation, my plan to also audio record the interactions as a means of recall of what transpired at class in addition to my notebook was confirmed.

In addition, although the ALO could speak fluent English, I realized that he switched code from English to the local language while facilitating. I found during follow-up questioning with him that he needed to do this to bring issues down for the comprehension of his participants. This gave me foreknowledge of the use of the local language in English literacy facilitation in the study classes. This necessitated my having to further review literature on the approaches to teaching English as a second language to learners with no or limited literacy and translation. This review drew my attention to the double tasks these ALOs have of teaching a second language and facilitating learning by participants who are still struggling with literacy in their own first languages. I therefore had to expect a mixture of local language with English in the main class observation and plan towards accommodating this. I noted also that I needed to be alert not to refer to the participants with their real names to protect them even at the data collection stage. I therefore informed them of referring to them as ALOs. These realizations were significant as ‘sensitivity and empathy of the researcher are highly significant to the outcomes’ (Dunne, Pryor & Yates; 2005, p. 33).