Data collection methods in other studies

For various reasons either participant observation or action research have become the primary methods for data collection in the classroom (Edwards-Groves, 2011). The two main data collection tools are classroom observation (usually combined with video or aural recording) and post-event interviewing of teachers and students. For example, a study of the teacher’s use of technology in science classes (Gillen, Littleton, Twiner, Staarman, & Mercer, 2008) used both observation and post-event interview of the teachers and students. Similarly Maher (2011) looked at the use of interactive whiteboards using a combination of semi-structured interviews with teachers and questionnaires administered to students, with some teaching sessions video-recorded. A similar design by Jaipal (2009) saw the research conducted using classroom observation, semi-structured interviews and informal interviews. The classroom sessions were audio-recorded and some lessons video-recorded (Jaipal, 2009).

Airey and Linder in a study of the teaching of physics in Swedish schools (Airey & Linder, 2009) first filmed the lectures and then interviewed students a few days after the lecture, using a semi-structured interview protocol. Students were shown extracts from the lectures at the interview, with the goal “to re-create as closely as possible the original learning situation, thus allowing students to better describe and reflect on their learning experiences in the specific situations that they were shown” (Airey & Linder, 2009, p. 35). For analysis purposes, the interviews were broken up into sections where the students discussed similar themes and these themes were grouped together for analysis. They argue that the key advantages of this combination are as follows:

At the same time we would argue that this approach had the benefit of better capturing the situatedness of the interview when we were working with the transcriptions. Maintaining this situatedness was considered important since in the interviews we were attempting, through stimulated recall, to vividly recapture for the students the essentials of their experience of being in a specific lecture. Student

files could also be easily re-related to the whole of the interview due to the timestamp identification code we used which led us directly to the correct position in each master recording. (p. 35)

When the research is more focussed on multimodality there is a greater reliance on video-recording. Thus Márquez et al. (2006) focussed on the communication modes of the teacher and how this may be related to presenting different information. The sessions were video-recorded and transcribed to capture the interactions and the use of four distinctive communication modes, “speech, meaningful gestures, drawings or symbols, and written text on the blackboard” (Márquez et al., 2006, p. 207). The reliance on video-recording was repeated in a study of how teachers combined images and text in their teaching (Poyas & Eilam, 2011).

Overall, video-recording has become the dominant tool to capture the raw material needed for multimodal data analysis (O’Halloran, 2011a, 2011b). The video camera (camcorder), is a valuable data collection tool for multimodal research on learning because of its ability to capture all the communicative and interactional modes co-occurring in learning contexts such as postural, gestural, spoken modes and so forth (Jewitt, 2006). Norris (2004a) emphasises that the video camera is at present the best instrument for collecting data to research the multimodal nature of communication. Furthermore, video cameras provide researchers with the ability to view the data many times (Jewitt, 2006).

However, the use of video recording is not without problems. One is the risk of becoming part of the discussion or interfering with the normal interaction in the student group. The wider issue is that of the observer’s paradox (Labov, 1972). This concept refers to the notion that the researcher should take into account how his/her presence and/or the artefacts he/she is using as data collection tools (such as a video camera, audio recorder and so on) in the social context being studied could affect the phenomenon under investigation and the people engaging in that phenomenon. In consequence students might either withdraw (shyness, a fear of being seen to be less competent) or engage more actively (a desire to be seen as an important part of the group processes) and the researcher needs to account for both (Gordon, 2012).

A related issue is that of student (and tutor) control of the recording process. This involves issues of ethics and participant consent (Miller & Wertheimer, 2009). In this

only be used for research purposes and that they can withdraw (partially or fully) at any stage (Koshy, 2005).

One particular problem with the use of video-recording is the issue of framing the shot (Dufon, 2002). The advantage of video-recording lies in the richness of the potential data and the capacity to capture a substantial range of evidence (speech, gesture, tool use, social and environmental context) in a single resource. However, this still has its limits. Even in a controlled interview situation there will be events that occur outside the frame of the camera and this is a much larger problem when a group is being filmed in a relatively natural setting (Dufon, 2002). One solution in this respect is to use several cameras, but in turn that either implies those cameras are fixed or that several observers can be used.

The ethnographic community shares the view that to be of value a video recording should be complete and continuous. This has the advantage of enabling a later examination of the entire interaction and preventing self-selection in the gathering of evidence (Asch, 1992). To ensure completeness, researchers are advised to try to use as a wide a view as possible so that events on the edge of the focus can be captured. In a classroom this framing of the shot is often supplied by the physical environment, but this still leaves a problem of focus. These questions involve when to concentrate on the actions of, say, the students and when to provide a detailed focus on the actions of the teacher. There is also a challenge if the goal, as in the case of this research, is to capture the meaning-making actions of the students (which may require a close-up focus) and on the information providing and meaning-making actions of the tutor at the same time. In general, video-recording is an invaluable aid, especially for multimodal research, but it does need some care in its deployment, in particular to ensure that the required information at the appropriate level of detail is captured (Wilkinson & Brady, 1982).