Data analysis procedures

Mertens (2010) outlines three steps in qualitative data analysis. Step 1 includes preparing the data for analysis and steps 2 and 3 the data exploration phase and data reduction phase.

I reviewed and reflected on the data as it was being collected. When I used video-taping of the Station Teaching in the classes I viewed all footage initially and made a judgement about how much to transcribe. As the researcher I transcribed the data as this is part of the data analysis process so that I could interact and engage with the data in an intensive way. Mertens (2010) suggests that this engagement with the data in a grounded manner, provides for the possibility of enhancing the trustworthiness and validity of my data gathering techniques (2010, p. 424). I organised my field notes from the observations under the different class headings and groupings. I put a copy of the footage of the video recording on my computer and also make CD’s of Station Teaching in the different classes. I labelled all of these to ensure the transcripts followed the correct order. Likewise with the interviews of the participants I filed the transcripts under different headings: Class teachers, Support teachers, pupils in the different classes and parents.

The transcripts from the interviews with teachers, parents and pupils as well as my observational evidence were read over several times and further reading and subsequent application of line by line coding, helped reveal the commonalities in the transcripts (Moynihan, 2013, p. 271). Normally themes do not ‘jump out’ of the data (Morse & Field, 1995, p. 139). The researcher, they claim, needs to take a step back and carefully consider what he/she is looking at, along with the question ‘What are these folks trying to tell me?’ (p. 139). Themes can lie beneath the surface initially but once they have been identified they do seem more obvious (Morse & Field, 1995). On completion of the line by line coding, colour coding

was used, throughout all of the transcripts, to highlight the various themes as they were uncovered.

As I followed steps two and three I explored the data and reduced it. These two phases are synergistic according to Mertens (2010). The data reduction occurred as I selected parts for decoding, both from my observations and interviews. Some parts naturally ‘hang together’ and I assigned a label accordingly (2010, p. 425). This helped in the identification of themes ultimately for presentation of the case study evidence.

Triangulation, according to Mertens (2010) involves checking information that has been collected from different sources for consistency of evidence across sources of data. I used multiple methods such as interviews, observations, children’s drawings, video-taping and document reviews. I interviewed teachers who are involved in the programme at different points along the way. Focus groups were useful to triangulate with the individual interviews. My teaching colleague from the cohort PhD also contributed to triangulating the evidence.

To add rigour to my qualitative data I also collected quantitative data by way of conducting pre and post-tests in Junior and Senior Infants. I collated the Concepts about Print test results including pupils’ scores in knowledge of letter names and sounds, pre and post intervention in the Junior Infant classes. These results corroborated the evidence from the observations and interviews and showed the average scores in these test items. In the Senior Infant classes I assessed the MIST results on five sub tests: Listening Skills; Letter sounds; Written vocabulary; Three phoneme words and Sentence Dictation and I compared them with the previous year. I calculated the mean score in each test item and showed whether or not there was a noticeable difference in the years: 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Every study has limitations and in this case I was concerned with the absence of a control group. In our school we have two streams of the classes in the junior end of the school and I was conducting my research in both classes so I did not have control group. I could not be involved in the implementation of a literacy intervention which would exclude one cohort. I also realised that I was dealing with pupils in the very young age bracket, pupils who have a short concentration span and may not be very reliable with their observations. I addressed that with the use of extensive observations and video recording. I was very conscious of having a good rapport with the infants and this facilitated my involvement in the research. On the day of the summer holidays the pupils were showing off their style to me as they could come to school that day without uniform. I was delighted that they were eager to engage with me in that regard!

A second limitation was the movement of teaching staff from the junior classes. In the first year of the study there were two teachers of Junior Infants but one of these left the school in June at the end of her contract. Two different teachers took the classes in Senior Infants so they have to get to know the class in September and this takes a while, even with passing on records and files. In the second year there were two new Support teachers who had to be trained in to Station Teaching and this was an interesting development to see their induction into the programme. One Support teacher had observed Station Teaching in June and this gave her an insight into the working of the programme and both new Support teachers watched the video recordings. I conducted individual interviews with the Class and Support teachers who were no longer in that role the next year to have a record of their observations of the programme.

A third limitation of the study is the fact that I as a researcher was also the principal of the school and this may have an effect on some of the interview data. When I was conducting interviews I hoped that the teachers saw it as part of my research and were comfortable contributing to it. I was already a participant in the programme and teachers seemed to be happy

with my role in it but I was conscious of the fact that I am still the principal of the school. However, on the other hand I think that teachers might have felt that it gave them a vehicle to put forward suggestions and recommendations that they might not have suggested otherwise!

5.3.12 Timelines

I commenced my research in Junior Infants in April 2013 and continued with these classes into Senior Infants until June 2014. I pilot tested the interview with a teacher and a pupil. I conducted individual interviews with teachers and pupils at the end of Junior Infants. I also conducted focus group interviews with the teachers and SNAs in the school and the parents of Junior Infants.

I worked as a participant-observer in the Station Teaching programme and took notes on my observations of two groups in each class on a monthly basis. I continued the observations with these classes in Senior Infants from September 2013 to June 2014. I photographed and video- taped the classes at the end of Junior Infants and again in Senior Infants in April 2014. I collected drawings from the children in November 2013 and again in June 2014, at the end of the study.

I repeated the interviews with the participants to check on progress during the year before writing up my research on the effect / experience of the initiative/intervention ‘Station Teaching’ from the participants’ point of view.

5.4 Conclusion

By combining and increasing the number of research strategies used within a particular project, we are able to broaden the dimensions and hence the scope of our project. By using more than one method within a research study, we are able to obtain a more complete picture of human behaviour and experience. Thus, we are better able to hasten our understanding and achieve our research goals more quickly (2003, p. 189).

In this chapter I have outlined in great detail the mixed methods approach of my research design. ‘The research design chosen was intended to offer the most appropriate way in which to gather the required data to answer all of the research questions posed’ (Moynihan, 2013, p. 199). The sample chosen for this study is outlined along with the response rates and the design for both the quantitative and the qualitative elements of the research. Following an explanation of the measures and the data collection procedures, the pilot testing process is detailed followed by the data analyses procedures and limitations of the study. The survey reflects what is happening nationally in relation to Station Teaching and the case study provides an in-depth study of the implementation of Station Teaching in junior and senior infant classes in a non- DEIS school.

In the next chapter (Chapter 6) I present the findings from the survey and Chapter 7 details the findings from the case study. Table 5B presents a summary of my data collection.

Table 5B: Summary of Data Collection

Quantitative Data

Questionnaire survey November 2013: 21 schools

115 teachers responded (54 Class teachers; 57 Support teachers; 4 Principals)

Pre and Post-tests:

Junior Infants: Letter and sound identification; ability to form letters; Concepts about print (April and June 2013)

Senior Infants: Pupil knowledge of sounds; word recognition; letter formation; reading fluency; MIST (September 2013, March 2014)