Child interviews

The investigation required a way of collecting children’s views in order to discover how children

understand what helps them to learn so it was necessary to discuss with the children and enable them to articulate their ideas.

It has long been agreed that it is difficult to interview young children with the purpose of finding out how they construct learning. Piaget, who has contributed greatly to knowledge and understanding of young children and who conducted many interviews with children has been criticised over the years. For

example, Wood (1998) suggested that Piaget underestimated the importance of the language used when interviewing children. Wood maintained that with a slight change of language Piaget would have obtained different results and therefore reached different conclusions. The language used in interviewing young children, therefore, is a critical aspect of the interview procedure. Rich (1972) suggested that the task of the interviewer is to exploit those factors which increase communication and minimise those which block it. He also warned that it is common for a child to be led to make false statements, simply by the form of the question put by an adult. Giving a child some measure of control over the interview may encourage more open communication. This may mean that more accurate results are obtained as the child is more likely to say what they really want to say rather than what they think the researcher wants them to say.

Piaget (1974) invited interviewers not to talk too much and not to be suggestive. He advised that a good interviewer must know how to observe and let the child talk freely and at the same time be alert for important information. An interview schedule was, therefore, required which allowed each child to talk freely but remain focused on the matters under consideration. It was necessary for children to explore how they understand what takes place during lessons without being led. PCT was considered the most appropriate overarching theoretical perspective. PCT allows the child to be at the centre of the interview. Furthermore, data collection methods can be flexible and adapted to young children. The interviewer does not need to say much or direct the interview so plenty of time can be given to the children. It was

considered appropriate to hold individual semi-structured interviews where children were encouraged to provide constructs and then discuss them where possible.

Children’s absence from the classroom for interviews had to be kept to a minimum. At the same time, the interview had to be long enough to gather useful and relevant information. Time also had to be allowed to enable children to relax. Leading questions had to be avoided but clarity in understanding assured. CA children were always timetabled to be interviewed following a CA lesson so that the experience was fresh in their minds. Children were assured that what they said would be treated with respect. Each child decided whether or not they would switch on the recording equipment. The interview began with the child naming the members of their group. This was easy and non-threatening. I wrote the names on small cards and the child arranged them on the table in the seating position of the group that day. From the pilot study, I learnt that it helped to engage each child in doing this as it focused attention on the group and as each child gave the names s/he already began to mention the activity that the group had just been doing. For example:

Sacha Nania

Margarite Abdul

John Claudio

Teacher

Figure 4.2: Figure to demonstrate the position of cards on the table.

Each construct is bi-polar as explained by Kelly (1955). To elicit the positive pole of each construct, each child was asked one question: “Can you say what you think helps you to learn during Let’s Think?” The only other direct researcher-led question was: “Do you all do that in the same way?” This enabled the opposite pole to be elicited because each child sorted the cards into groups of who performed in the same way and those who did something differently. For example:

These ones talk a lot These don’t talk much

Abdul Nania

Sacha Margarite

John Claudio

Figure 4.3: Diagram showing how a child sorts the group according to the construct: Talk – Don’t talk

It took several attempts during the pilot study to find a method to elicit the opposite pole in a constructive way. Children did not understand the word “opposite”. Also, the method needed not to convey any suggestion of judgement or criticism.

The final version of the pilot study method was used and this worked well as the children immediately launched into separating the cards. As they did so they explained what they were doing with details of the experience of the group. For example:

I think really well because I am clever. Tamu is clever too so he thinks so that card goes with me and Susan too. Dawn doesn’t think though. She wants to vote all the time and she does not have good

ideas. Karen can’t think and Mooni maybe can but he can’t really speak English so maybe he can think in his language. So four groups of us doing thinking different.

Nemy Dawn Karen Mooni

Tamu

Susan

Figure 4.4: Diagram to show the four groups assigned by Nemy

Interviews with non-CA children took the same format but focused on mathematics lessons as these were considered the nearest classroom context to CA.

When each child had finished producing constructs and grouping their peers for each construct

mentioned, the concept of the Salmon Line (Salmon, 1995a) was introduced. This is a method of enabling interviewees to rate constructs. I drew a line marked zero to three:

0 1 2 3

Figure 4.5:To demonstrate a Salmon Line

The child was asked to choose one construct - for example, talk/don’t talk - and then asked, “During Let’s Think, do you talk a lot (3), some (2), hardly at all (1) or not at all (0)?” Their place on the line was then identified. The child next placed each group member’s name card on the line for the construct under discussion. The process was then repeated for each construct produced. In the course of this stage children usually embellished their actions with reasons for their choices. During the pilot stage, the Salmon Line was drawn indicating 0-5 as the scale. During trialling, it was clear that children found this gradation too complex and difficult. The children only used 0 – not at all, 1 – hardly at all, 2 - some, 5 - a lot. So to look for a more trustworthy method the reduction of categories to 0-3 was tried. A scale of 0-3 (“not at all” to “a lot”) was found to be sufficient to encourage children to discuss difference in behaviours but not so complicated as to make the task impossible or tedious. In the study the rating on the Salmon Lines is not reported as it was found that what was important was the qualitative information discussed. The children

used mostly 0 and 3 with little use of the gradation scale. This was found not to add any useful information to the study.

There was no pressure to produce a certain number of constructs during interviews. No judgement was passed at any time and no comments were made that could imply any kind of criticism. When the children had finished, they were asked whether they would like to hear the recording. They were then accompanied back to class.

Interviews explored the words children used to ensure clarity of meaning. For example, Nemy said: doing hard things makes you learn while Susan said: easy things but they can be boring. Allowing further time for elaboration elicited that Susan wanted some challenges (hard things) during the day to enable her to feel that she was learning something new and to keep boredom at bay. This established that the two constructs that were initially produced held the same main idea but could easily have been

misrepresented. It was important to take time and effort to become as clear as possible about what the children meant when they produced their constructs.

In each year of the study, individual child interviews took place in September, March and July to explore children’s understandings of what they considered helped their learning. My position during the children’s interviews was of “being with the child”, providing the context and to support him/her while consistently avoiding as much as possible being a main player or having a voice. My role was to endeavour to construe an understanding of the children’s words. Results are reported in Chapter 6.