Data Collection

Consent was obtained from learner participants and their parents/guardians where applicable. Assent was obtained from learners under 18. The informed consent forms and information sheets were prepared for the study participants and the parent/guardian (see Appendix B - D). The information sheet explained the purpose of the research and the nature of voluntary participation. Consent was also requested to audio record the interviews (See Appendix D). For the purpose of this study, only data collected from the interviews with progressed learners and the focus group discussion with educators was analysed. The data was analysed in both an

inductive manner and a deductive approach in exploring the cognitive, behavioural and environmental processes associated with improved academic performance of progressed learners. Interviews were conducted with four learners and four educators participated in the focus group discussion. Fontana and Frey (2000) noted that selection of the appropriate data collection method is crucial as privacy has a substantial effect on response bias in relation to questions about sensitive topics or socially undesirable behaviours. Individual interviews were thus selected for learners due to the personal nature of the focus with regards to failing and poor academic performance. The focus group discussion was the selected method for educators based on practical reasons like time constraints, as well as the advantage of participants building on each other’s ideas (Fontana & Frey, 2000).

It was thus assumed that the individual interviews with the progressed learners and the focus group discussion with educators would generate a rich, detailed understanding of the barriers and facilitators for progressed learners from the learner and educator points of view. Fontana and Frey (1994) refer to interviews as a powerful method of accessing information. The interview is a co-ordinated conversation with the aim of obtaining specific information. In this study, a semi-structured interview schedule was used for learners under three main headings/broad questions (see Appendix F). The duration of the individual learner interviews was approximately an hour. The educators constituted a focus group facilitated using a semi- structured focus group guide with open-ended questions (see Appendix G). Further to this, the focus group discussion guide for educators was comprised of group discussion topics and open- ended probe questions (Harrell & Bradley, 2009). The questions posed to educators centred on their role in facilitating the improvement of learner performance utilising school resources, especially in terms of the progression policy and their interpretation of the policy. Questions also covered curriculum implementation, classroom management, difficulties encountered in the course of implementing the curriculum, classroom dynamics in relation to the progression policy and their view of the personal, behavioural and environmental processes in relation to the progressed learners. The duration of the focus group discussion with educators was one- and-a-half hours. The questions developed for and used in the interviews and focus group discussion were grounded in Bandura’s SCT. The questions were developed by the researcher in line with the theoretical framework. The questions in both the interviews and focus group discussion were intended to elicit the participants’ understanding of the personal, behavioural and environmental processes associated with academic improvement, and the challenges facing

progressed learners and educators. Hannan (2007) stated that semi-structured interviews are advantageous in that they have “some pre-set questions, but allow more scope for open-ended answers” (p.7). Whilst Harrell and Bradley (2009) encourage the use of discussion topics and probe questions to guide and develop the focus group discussion responses. For the purposes of this research, the use of open-ended questions, in both the interviews and focus group discussions, was very important in order to elicit in-depth information. This information was to focus on the individual experiences, and the meaning attached, to what constitutes barriers and facilitators in academic performance of progressed learners from the point of view of both progressed learners and educators who are principally responsible for their academic attainment. The selected method allowed the researcher to obtain detail of personal experiences and individual interpretations attached to views given in the interviews and focus group discussion. This was also in line with the interpretivist paradigm as the adopted approach in this study (Goldkuhl, 2012).

The individual interviews and focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed and analysed in line with Holstein and Gubrium’s (2003) characterisation of interviews as a co-construction of knowledge and meaning. The co-construction of knowledge and meaning meant that the researcher had to understand and engage with participants as collaborators by acknowledging their authority and expertise, remaining open to the views of the participants, in light of previous experience at the study site, and finally be cognisant of ethical consequences of research relationships and motivations (Ellis & Patti, 2014). The difficulty to maintain these roles will be discussed further concerning limitations in sub-section 3.8.1. The individual interviews and focus group discussion was structured with initial contact made with targeted educators and learners. The researcher arranged the location, explained the nature of the interview and focus group discussion process and asked pre-established questions and probe questions based on the responses until the interview and focus group discussion agendas had been fulfilled.