Data analysis

Data analysis involves the researcher understanding and interpreting the data collected in order to generate findings, make conclusions and recommendations on the phenomenon under investigation (Merriam, 2002, p. 25). Data that were collected during the five months period came from prolonged engagement in interviews with the twelve case study teachers and also persistent observations in their classrooms. For this reason, the goal when analyzing the data was to achieve accuracy and precision between the data and the teachers’ classroom practices that the data represented (see Emerson et al., 1995). I achieved this goal through a number of steps. These steps involved:

i) Rigorous reading of the data in order to familiarize myself with them.

ii) Checking the transcripts while listening to the original tapes and with additional notes or deletions made where necessary.

iii) Reading through the transcripts and marking the important points. iv) Marking possible quotes.

v) Identifying themes that were emerging from the data. These themes or categories were those related to indicators of dimensions of Productive Pedagogies (see Chapter 3). The four dimensions of Productive Pedagogies are shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Productive Pedagogy dimensions, items and key questions addressed Dimension Indicator Key questions asked to detect the presence of the

indicator Intellectual

quality

Higher order thinking

 Are students required to manipulate information and ideas to arrive at new meanings?

 Is critical analysis occurring?

 Are students required to combine facts and ideas in order to synthesise, generalize, explain, hypothesise or arrive at some conclusion or interpretation?

Deep knowledge

 Does the lesson cover central ideas and concepts in any depth, detail or level of specificity?

Deep

understanding

 Do the work and responses of the students demonstrate a deep understanding of concepts or ideas?

Substantive conversation

 Does classroom talk lead to sustained conversational dialogue between students, and between teacher and students, to create or negotiate understanding of subject matter?

Knowledge problematic

 Are students critically examining texts, ideas and knowledge? To what degree is knowledge presented as constructed?

Meta-language  Are aspects of language, grammar and technical vocabulary being given prominence?

Connectedness to the world beyond the classroom Connectedness to the world

 Is the lesson, activity or task connected to competencies or concerns beyond the classroom or real-life contexts?

Background knowledge

 Are links with students’ background knowledge made explicit?

 Are there attempts to explore students’ prior knowledge?

Knowledge

integration  Does the lesson integrate a range of subject areas?

Problem-based curriculum

 Is there focus on identifying and solving intellectual and/or real world problems that have no specific correct solution?

Engagement with

difference

Cultural knowledge

 Are there explicit attempts to bring in beliefs, languages, practices and ways of knowing non- dominant cultures (e.g. in terms of gender, ethnicity, race, religion, economic status, sexuality or youth)?

Inclusivity  Are there deliberate attempts to increase the participation of students of different backgrounds? Narrative  Is the style of teaching principally narrative, or is

it expository?

Group identity  Does the teaching build a sense of community and identity for different groups within the classroom? Citizenship  Are there attempts made to foster active

citizenship?

Supportive classroom environment

Engagement  Are students engaged and on task?; are they attentive, doing the assigned work, contributing to group tasks and helping peers?; Or are they sleeping, day-dreaming, making a noise or otherwise disrupting the class?

Student self regulation

 Are students regulating their own behavior, or is the teacher involved in giving directions on student behavior?

Student direction of activities

 Do students have any say in the pace, direction or outcomes of the lesson?

Social support  Is the classroom a socially supportive and positive environment?

 Does the teacher convey high expectations for all students, including the expectation that they take intellectual risks and try to master challenging academic work?

 Is there a climate of mutual respect? Explicit quality

performance criteria

 Are the criteria for judging the range of student performance made explicit?

From the table above, forms of content knowledge in a curriculum is a significant aspect which is missing in Productive Pedagogy framework, but which was anticipated to exist in the lessons observed. For this reason, ‘Forms of Knowledge in the curriculum’ as postulated by Moore and Muller (2001) was used as the lens to illuminate the forms of content knowledge which teachers taught. In this indicator, the distinctions of instrumental and non-instrumental knowledge provided sharper categories of knowledge taught. Moore and Muller (2001) identify two forms of content knowledge that are reflected in many a contemporary curriculum policies. These forms of content knowledge are ‘Instrumental’ and ‘Non-instrumental or traditional knowledge’. According to Moore and Muller, Instrumental curriculum has content knowledge that seems to aim at imparting to the learners knowledge and skills that are prerequisite for entering a particular profession,

accumulating power or influence or creating thing (including ideas) of utility or beauty. The knowledge in an instrumentalist curriculum becomes a tool through which the needs, aspirations, interests and objectives of the society are articulated and addressed as learning experiences for the development of the individuals through teaching/learning process. The knowledge is supportive of what is seen as the needs of both the society and the economy and learners have to be socialized to the culture of the society and the world of work and the schools is seen as a source of useable knowledge.

In both overseas and African countries, there is currently a general trend away from disciplinary majors in favour of instrumental subjects. For example, in the United Kingdom, instrumentalism, under the guise of promoting the employability of all students, has been adopted both in the Universities and in the academic curriculum for 16-19 year olds. All students are now encouraged to mix academic and vocational subjects (Moore and Muller, 2001). In America, the middle ranks universities, a central part of “academic revolution” are now dominated by instrumental as opposed to disciplinary curriculum. In Nigeria, there has been an agitation for entrepreneurship education as one of the ways to solving youth unemployment (2004). Prominent among those that have already lent their voice to this call, are, Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN), corporate bodies such as banking industry, oil and gas industry, who have justified the need for entrepreneurship education for the Nigerian students describing it as: skill they require to develop an entrepreneurial orientation and mindset as a necessary preparation for the business, vocational and professional lives after their formal schooling. In this regard, many higher institutions of learning in Nigeria have yielded to the calls through their academic programme planning unit by developing entrepreneurship programmes.

In Southern Africa, a number of Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries, such as South Africa, Botswana and Malawi have since 2004, following the

countries’ adoption of the SADC Protocol on Education and Training, formulated curricula with strong instrumentalist slant.

Non-instrumental curricula on the other hand look at knowledge in the curriculum as an end in itself. In non-instrumental curricula, a curriculum is aimed at inculcating rational modes of behaviour among the learners rather than preparing learners for the world of work. In America for example, elite institutions are still largely being governed by

traditional or non-instrumental curricula while the middle-ranked universities, as indicated earlier above are dominated by instrumental as opposed to traditional or non-instrumental curriculum.

The coding of the lesson observation data of the pedagogic practices of teachers through the lens of Productive Pedagogies enabled the study of the intellectual quality of the lessons. The lens illuminated the lessons in which teachers included or used dimensions and indicators of Productive Pedagogies, and the frequency with which the teachers used the dimensions and indicators of Productive Pedagogies in their lessons. Sample lessons illustrating how the dimensions and indicators of Productive pedagogies were applied to the lesson observation data to analyse the classroom practices of the twelve case study teachers are provided as Appendix 10 in the Compact disc accompanying this thesis. Other steps involved in analyzing the data involved:

vi) Arranging the themes or categories so that they form a logical pattern to facilitate the writing of the report.

vii) The analysis of the questionnaire involved:

a Reading through and writing down all meaningful responses. b Putting similar responses together

c. Designing themes or categories and matching them with the themes from lesson observations and interviews.

The strategies outlined above were not in any strict order, but were interwoven as the research progressed. This meant continuously moving backwards and forwards among the transcripts and questionnaire data. This process is like that described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as the development of ‘ground theory’, the production of analysis and explanation which is grounded in the data. This required moving consciously between the emerging explanations (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1989, p.98). The unit of analysis for data was Productive Pedagogies practices of teachers as postulated by Lingard et al. (2001). The categories from the above framework were thus applied to the entire data. Each category contained all pieces from the entire data body that were relevant to that category.