3.11.1 Direct observation
Observation is the process of gathering open-ended, firsthand information by observing people and places at a research site (Creswell, 2007:236). In this study, I was a direct observer. My observation was non-participant. A nonparticipant observer is an observer who visits a site and records notes without becoming involved in the activities of the participants (Creswell, 2007:238). The nonparticipant observer is an “outsider” who sits on the periphery or some advantageous place (e.g. the back of the classroom) to watch and record the phenomenon under study (ibid).
I observed how the research participants interacted during ES lessons in class and how they attached meanings or interpreted their ways of interaction. I observed ES lessons delivered by grades 4 to 7 teachers teaching ESL learners at purposively selected schools. The normal
89
timetable of each class was adhered to as much as possible. The venues of the lessons were the usual learners’ classrooms, that is the participants were in their “natural setting”. I also observed learners outside the classroom. These observations were conducted from the second term of 2016 up to the second term of 2017. During my direct observation of the lessons, I tried to be as unobtrusive as possible so as not to bias my observations. My observations were overt and not covert. This means that my observations were open to view. I did not attempt to conceal them. Scholars and researchers possess a variety of opinions, ranging from utter opposition to complete acceptance, about whether it is ethical to conduct covert observations (Patton,2002). Professional associations and institutional review boards are cautious and skeptical about approving covert observations (Creswell, 2007:254). I recorded the data through a video camera and some field notes.
Observation instruments designed by other researchers for this purpose were not used because “no existing coding scheme does the job that you want it to” (Robson, 1993:210). Coding schemes contain predetermined categories for recording what is observed (Siwela 2013:26). In addition to direct observation of ES lessons, I also employed the following methods: in-depth interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs) and document analysis. According to Mooney (2014) the most commonly used qualitative approaches are focus groups and in-depth interviews. Mooney also believes that face-to-face interviews and group discussions are the best way to get this kind of in-depth feedback. Yin (2014) concurs with Mooney when he emphasises the fact that interviews are the most important sources of data collection. Very useful data was obtained in this study through the use of in-depth interviews.
3.11.2 In-depth interviews
Equally popular to observation in qualitative research is interviewing. Rubin and Rubin (2012:29) outline interviews as “in-depth qualitative interviewing,” which is characterised by three features namely: (1). Interviews look for “rich and detailed information , not for yes-or- no, agree-or-disagree responses.” (2). Instead of giving question categories, questions are open- ended. (3). Questions and their order are not fixed: they can be adapted to the flow of the interview conversation. A qualitative interview occurs when researchers ask one or more participants general, open-ended questions and record their answers (Creswell, 2007:240). In- depth interviews differ from direct observation primarily in the nature of the interaction. In interviews, it is assumed that there is a questioner and one or more interviewees. The purpose of the interview is to probe the ideas of the interviewees about the phenomenon of interest
90
(Trochim, 2009:159). In this study, I was the interviewer and the interviewees were the teachers and their learners and the phenomenon of interest was the use of ESL in learning Environmental Science at primary school level in Zimbabwe.
I interviewed 12 teachers and 12 learners. All the interviews were face-to-face and unstructured. The unstructured interview is a powerful research tool that is widely used in social research and other fields. It is capable of producing rich and valuable data (Punch, 2005:172). Unstructured interviewing involves direct interaction between the researcher and a respondent or group (Trochim, 2009:161). It differs from the traditional structured interviewing in several important ways:
i. Although the researcher may have some initial guiding questions or core concepts to ask about, there is no formal structured instrument or protocol.
ii. The interviewer is free to move the conversation in any direction of interest that may arise.
Consequently, unstructured interviewing is particularly useful for exploring a topic broadly. Trochim (2009:161) observes that unstructured interviewing may very well be the most common form of data collection of all. Punch (2005:172) also observes that there is a wide range of unstructured interviews which include the traditional type of unstructured interview which is the non-standardised, open-ended, in-depth interview, that is sometimes known as the ethnographic interview. Punch explains that unstructured interviewing is used as a way of understanding the complex behaviour of people without imposing any a priori categorisation which might limit the field of inquiry. Fontana and Frey (1994:172) identifies seven aspects of unstructured interviewing as follows:
• Accessing the setting;
• Understanding the language and culture of the respondents; • Deciding on how to present oneself;
• Locating an informant; • Gaining trust;
• Establishing rapport; and
• Collecting the empirical materials.
91
These interviews included both individual interviews, that is one-on-one, as well as group interviews that included FGDs. The data was recorded through video-recording and written field notes.
Each time the interviews were held, introduction of all the participants was done first, then I explained why the interview was being conducted. I established good rapport with the participants. Confidentiality forms were signed by me and the participants. Easy questions were asked at the beginning of each interview and more difficult questions followed as the interview progressed. We agreed on when to meet next. I thanked the participants at the end of each interview. In the next interview, I asked more open-ended questions. A total of 12 in-depth interviews were held.
3.11.3 Focus group discussion (FGD)
There are several types of group interview, which are also known as focus group discussions (FGDs). These FGDs can be unstructured, semi-structured or highly structured. Because different types of group interviews have different purposes, which type should be used in a particular research situation depends on the context and research purposes (Punch, 2005:171). In this study I used the semi-structured FGDs.
The FGD method is a way of collecting qualitative data, which usually involves engaging a small number of participants in an informal group discussion (or discussions), ‘focused’ around a particular topic or set of issues. The discussions will be based on a series of questions (the FGD schedule), and the researcher will act as a ‘moderator’ for the group: posing questions, keeping the discussions flowing, and enabling the group members to participate fully (Silverman, 2011:168-9). In other words, the moderator assumes the role of a facilitator during the group discussions. FGDs normally comprise 5 to 8 participants brought together to discuss a number of topics, guided by a moderator. The dynamics of the interaction between participants is an important feature of an FGD (Mooney, 2014). The proceedings are video- recorded and transcribed. I coded and analysed the video transcriptions during the focus group discussions. I was the moderator and grades 4 to 7 teachers and their pupils were the participants. The role of the researcher changes in a group interview, functioning more as a moderator or facilitator, and less as an interviewer (Punch (2005:171). In that position of a moderator, I was facilitating, moderating, monitoring and recording group interaction (ibid). I did not request anyone to act as the moderator because I wanted to safe-guard the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants. Their discussions were centred on the use of
92
ESL and indigenous languages as the LoLT in Environmental Science lessons. For the focus group schedules, see Appendix 10. Twelve focus group discussions were held.
3.11.4 Document analysis
Documents are a rich source of data for social research (Punch, 2005:184). In case studies, documentary data may be collected in conjunction with interviews and observations (ibid). In conjunction with other data, documents can be important in triangulation, where an intersecting set of different methods and data types is used in a single project (Denzin, 1989:25). Document analysis usually refers to existing documents as opposed to transcripts of interviews conducted for the research. The documents can include newspapers, magazines, books, Web sites, memos, transcripts of conversations and annual reports. Usually written documents are analysed with some form of content analysis (Trochim, 2009:159). Analysis of documents is done in order to produce reliable evidence about the phenomenon under investigation (Silverman, 2005:123). For Punch (2005:184) the range of documents which might be used by social scientists includes diaries, letters, essays, personal notes, biographies and autobiographies, institutional memoranda and reports, and government pronouncements and proceedings. MacDonald and Tipton (1996:199)emphasise that , in documentary research, nothing should be taken for granted, and they recommend Denzin’s triangulation framework to make sure that everything is checked from more than one angle.
In this study, I analysed pupils’ ES written exercise books, teachers’ documents as well as relevant assessment documents by Ministry of Primary and Secondary School Education Officials. A letter requesting assent from learners in a primary school to have their documents analysed was given to all the pupils whose documents were analysed (See Appendix 11). The parents of those learners whose books were analysed also completed consent forms to indicate that they did not object to the idea of having their children’s books analysed.
3.12 Sources of data
I used two types of sources of data. These were primary data [observing behaviour and pupils’ exercise books; pupils’ responses to questions posed by their teachers during lessons and by the researcher during interviews] and secondary data [lesson observation reports by school officials like Provincial Education Director (PED), Deputy Provincial Education Director (DPED), District Education Officer (DEO), Education Officer (EO), Inspector, School Head, Deputy
93
School Head, Teacher in Charge (TIC) or Class teacher/Mentor; class teacher’s or student teacher’s documents like scheme books, plan books, and record books (Document analysis)].