Data Collection Methods

Observation is a data collection strategy on which qualitative interpretive research heavily depends (Andrade, 2009; Merriam, 2001; Cohen et al, 2010; Neuman, 2009), and was a primary data collection method in this study. Observations consist of detailed notation of behaviour, events and interactions and the contexts surrounding these (Best & Kahn, 2006; Cohen et al, 2010; Miles & Huberman, 1986). During data collection in the empirical field my observations focused mainly on the events and interactions in NICLE. Observations, fieldwork notes and document collection allows me to describe and analyse NICLE sessions, and the projected PMTI in chapter 6. Analysing the NICLE sessions’ activities in which teachers engaged helps to understand the nature of primary maths teacher learning within NICLE and activities, relations and forms of participation within the CoP which enable or constrain teacher maths identities and practices, thus gathering data to answer the key and the 2nd _{research questions to this study.}

Both McMillan and Schumacher (2001) and Bell (1989) agree that observations reveal characteristics and elicit data that is nearly impossible to gather with other means or approaches. Thus observational data represent a first-hand encounter with the phenomenon under study ‘in situ’, which affords the investigator the opportunity to gather ‘live’ data from naturally occurring social situations (Cohen et al, 2010, p. 397; Merriam, 2001). Observations thus enabled me to gather data concerning the nature of NICLE sessions and forms of participation in activities - information which I could not collect through document collection. The observations also provided me with the opportunity to collect first-hand data on the interactions and mathematical activities of the teachers-in-NICLE within the natural empirical site of research. My 2 years of observations within NICLE also helped me as researcher to be familiar, aware and “internalise the basic beliefs, fears, hopes and expectations of the people under study” (Fetterman, 1997, p. 480).

As explained earlier, my observation was as a participant observer, what both Merriam (2001, p. 101) and Cohen et al (2010, p. 404) call “Participant-as-observer”. This for me entailed being actively involved in NICLE’s primary maths teacher activities and documenting and recording NICLE sessions. My participation in the NICLE activities involved working mathematical problems and tasks and finding solutions together with the NICLE participants with whom I would randomly sit with. As a Participant observer I also compiled notes of the

observational accounts in my field work notebook. I compiled field work notes from 26 March 2010 to 9 October 2012 across 26 sessions. Furthermore I recorded several NICLE sessions using an audio-recorder which enabled revisiting data and refining field notes where relevant.

5.5.2 Document collection and analysis

One of the four methods I used for data gathering was document collection. Document collection is a valuable alternative source of data used to supplement information obtained (Bell, 1989). According to McMillan and Schumacher (2001), document collection provides an internal perspective as well as the values of the organisation (the NICLE community in this case). During the research study I gathered and analysed both local primary documents and national official documents. Local primary documents are those that come into existence during the period of the project under research (Bell, 1989). In my case these included documents and reports compiled by the Chair and NICLE hand-outs given to teachers. The SANC documents and reports analysis helps in identifying the promoted and projected NICLE numeracy teacher identity. I also analysed national government official curriculum policy documents (see Chapter 2) to investigate the officially sanctioned and projected version of the South African primary maths teacher identity (Tyler, 1999, Bernstein & Solomon, 1999). The collected NICLE hand-outs help in describing the key NICLE activities and the promoted PMTI which are analysed in the following chapter.

5.5.3 Interactive Interviewing

The third data collection technique I employed is interactive interviews, sometimes referred to as narrative interviews, used in qualitative interactive studies (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Cohen et al, 2010; Neuman, 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1986). Narrative interviews are mainly used in narrative inquiry research and focus on the participant’s lived experience (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Clandinin & Connelly, 1994). Generally interviews have been used as a research tool for eliciting specific information from the respondent that allows the interviewer to access the perspective of the person being interviewed (Neuman, 2009; Best & Kahn, 2006). However interviews can give prominence to the Interviewer who can dominate the interview process and silence the voice of the interviewee. Interactive interviews reverse such hierarchical interviewing relations, with participants retaining considerable control over the course of the interview, thus giving them the time and space to tell their story (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990).

Interactive interviews are defined as “shared experiences in which researchers and interviewees come together to create a context of conversational intimacy in which participants feel comfortable telling their story” (Corbin & Morse, 2003, p. 338). I used interactive interviews so as to afford and privilege the teachers’ voices in the research and to reduce my influence over the interviewing process. Key also for this study is the fact that (interactive) interviews also allow the sampled primary teachers to tell their (maths) learning stories as they see, feel and experience them (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Clandinin & Connelly, 1994). As the teachers told their learning stories, I gleaned information about the changes in the teachers’ maths teaching identity stories (Sfard & Prusak, 2005), their learning trajectories (Wenger, 1998) and how they learn in NICLE (that is their telos – Lave, 1996), and what they enlist as enabling or hindering their learning in NICLE and in the broader educational context. Thus the sampled primary maths teachers’ learning stories together with the above-mentioned sociocultural theoretical elements illustrates my creation of the term ‘stelos’, which I define as teacher learning stories. This enables the study to address mainly the overarching question and the other research questions underpinning this study. The teacher learning stories (stelos) from the narrative interviews also provide the study with key data that will be discussed in chapter 8, 9 and 10.

For the interactive interviews I used semi-structured schedules with open-ended questions to enable interview conversations, and in the process hear the learning stories of the selected teachers. Both the first (2011) and second (2012) interactive interviews with the 8 sampled primary maths teachers were carried out at the end of each year (November and December), with the average time for each interview being 1 hour. Thus the 8 sampled teachers were each interviewed twice during the two year period of my data gathering. To elicit key issues raised by the teachers in the interactive interviews, I designed participant-specific questions which were prepared for particular participants. The 2011 and 2012 interactive interview schedules are available in Appendix 1.

While the topics, issues and questions discussed were selected in advance through a semi- structured interview schedule, I always gave room for the participants to narrate what they felt important and relevant both to the study and their learning stories. All the questions in the interactive interview schedules, including the participant-specific questions, were worded in an open-ended format (Best & Kahn, 2006). Open-ended items suit interactive interviews as they encourage co-operation, help establish rapport, and give opportunities for participants to construct their stories (Cohen et al, 2010, Corbin & Morse, 2003). All the interviews were

conducted at the respondents’ schools and were audio-recorded and fully transcribed for analysis.

5.5.4 Reflective Journals

The study also used teacher reflective journals as a way of strengthening the teachers’ voices in the research. Reflective journals have been commonly used in psychotherapy and in the broader medical and health field and are gaining popularity in educational research (Chirema, 2006; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). To differentiate educational research reflective journals from personal diaries I explained and gave guidelines to each of the 8 sampled NICLE participating teachers. I explained that their thoughts and feelings should be centred on topics related to key research questions posed by this study. A copy of the Reflective Journal

Guidelines given to each teacher is given in Appendix 3. In the Reflective Journals the

teachers were encouraged to reflect deeply and write their opinions, feelings and experiences in NICLE, in their primary maths classrooms, in maths departments, in schools and in overlapping communities of practice related to how they learn as teachers and how their primary maths professional identity and practices evolve within such contexts. Clandinin and Connelly (1994, p. 421) explain that journal writing is a “powerful way for individuals to give accounts of their experience”. Furthermore Chirema (2006) and Cunliffe (2004) explain that journal writing is a useful tool for promoting critical reflection of experiences. It is a means by which teachers engage in learning, and allows them to discuss the link between theory and practice. Through this they explore new possibilities for being and acting.

I gave the 8 sampled teachers journals in the form of a special bound notebook in November 2011. I collected the copies of the journals in February 2013. The study thus focuses on journal entries made between November 2011 and December 2012, which marked the end of my data collection period for this research. However in some of the journal entries teachers reflected on NICLE events that happened before November 2011. The extent, frequency, depth of engagement and style of journal writing differed across the sampled participants. An analysis of the teachers’ journal entries reveals that most of the teachers wrote about NICLE activities and materials that they took up and used in their classes. Edna, Pamela, Melania, Mary and Calvin included journal writings about participating in overlapping mathematics communities of practice such as the AMESA regional conference, in further studies, in Steve’s maths magic shows, in the Science-festival show, during the Maths Fun

day, and the desire to form maths teacher clusters. Such information informs the discussions in Chapter 8 and 9 and assists in addressing the 1st and 2nd research questions. It is interesting to note that both Pamela and Mary additionally wrote about their mathematical fears which illuminate the findings in Chapter 8 concerning the nature of learning of primary teachers with initially negatively valued maths identities being ‘remediated’ through participation. Generally the journals entries are key for strengthening, enriching and triangulating the data gathered through the other three collection strategies, (participant observations, interactive interviews and document collection). This serves to improve both the internal validity of data through triangulation and the external validity of the research findings by providing rich thick descriptions which enhances the relatability of the study. Whilst I have provided a brief summary of the journal entries above, the direct quoting of the participants’ journal entries will be done in the data analysis chapters 8, 9 and 10.