Data Collection Procedure

There are three main paradigms in educational research: positivist, interpretivist, and pragmatist (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). The positivist approach, which is also associated with quantitative research, emphasises empirical means (or objectivity) to create knowledge, while the interpretivist approach, associated with qualitative research, is more subjective and is used to obtain an in-depth understanding of the context from the perspective of participants. A pragmatic paradigm emphasizes all possible approaches that could help the researcher to best answer the research questions. This allows the researcher to employ multiple approaches in data collection and analysis that suit the study (Creswell, 2003).

This study was underpinned by a pragmatic paradigm which employed both the qualitative and quantitative approaches in data collection and analysis to provide opportunities for in depth understanding of the experiences and perceptions of the research participants. This paradigm was congruent with the case study’s qualitative methodology and its focus on answering both ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Creswell, 2003). The data collection and analysis were carried out sequentially with the intention that the interviews would enrich the findings in the survey (Creswell, 2003).

A multiple case studies design was used in this study to provide “rich, thick description” (Merriam, 1998, p. 29), thus, data were gathered from multiple

Hasniza Nordin Page 60

sources. Simons (2009) states the three qualitative methods often used in case study research are interview, classroom observation and document study. According to Creswell (1998), the selection of research methods and instruments that are used in the process of data collection also establishes the boundaries of the cases chosen. Thus, data for this study were gathered through a questionnaire, interviews and classroom observation. Documents such as lesson plans, visiting lecturer’s feedback and researcher’s journal were also used in order to triangulate the data gathered from multiple perspectives. These methods were chosen as most appropriate for yielding answers to the research questions. Multiple methods of data collection can strengthen internal validity (Merriam, 1998) or trustworthiness. The three sources of data on pre-service teachers’ experience and development of ICT knowledge and TPACK mastery level were also intended to provide a richer description of their field experiences.

3.5.1 Data collection process in New Zealand

The process of collecting data also consisted of obtaining consent from the participants, asking them to complete a pre-survey and post-survey, conducting interviews and observing a classroom session. The University of Canterbury requires ethical approval to be granted before research can be conducted, thus, an ethical application for the research proposal was sent to and approved by the College of Education Ethical Clearance Committee (see Appendix A for ethical approval). Following the ethical approval, the information sheet and consent form were submitted to obtain permission to carry out the research within the Teacher Education Programme. Then, letters including the information sheet and consent forms were distributed to the research participants in the Professional Studies class (see section 3.5.1 for participant selection in New Zealand). The participation criteria were explained to the participants and it was made clear that the participation was voluntary and information given was confidential.

The researcher then started to access the participants (pre-service teachers who volunteered to participate in the follow-up study) at their practicum schools by contacting the school principal. This was appropriate as the researcher expected to interview the pre-service teachers during the school session where the liaison

Hasniza Nordin Page 61

teacher and the associate teacher also would be involved in the data collection process. The participants were provided with an information sheet (see Appendices D - M) explaining the purpose of the study, what data would be collected, what participation would be involved, use of the findings, consent form, the voluntary nature of participation, privacy and confidentiality of the participants. The consent form explained that participation was voluntary, that the participant might decline or withdraw at any stage without penalty of any kind and could do so without having to provide reasons. The researcher and supervisors’ contact information were also provided. The consent form was signed and obtained from each participant. The participants were informed that the interview would be audio recorded and the data would be stored and protected following the requirements outlined by the University of Canterbury.

3.5.2 Data collection process in Malaysia

In order to collect data in Malaysia, an application for conducting research was submitted to the Educational Policy Research and Planning Section, Ministry of Education and Economic Planning Unit (EPU), Ministry of Current Affairs. EPU is a Malaysian government agency under the Prime Minister’s department that is responsible for pre-approving any research conducted by international institutions in Malaysia. This is part of the requirement for any research conducted in or about Malaysia. The researcher assured the research officer that a copy of the results of the study would be given to the agency, with the intention of providing new insights and understanding about some of the issues facing teacher educators and pre-service teachers. After gaining permission to collect data from the Educational Policy Research and Planning Section, Ministry of Education and Economic Planning Unit, Ministry of Current Affairs (see Appendix C for research approval), the researcher approached the Head of the Department of Educational Studies Division to get consent and cooperation for data collection, and permission to contact individual lecturers in order to discuss the research project and to request their participation. An information sheet and consent form was included, explaining the purpose of the study and strict confidentiality of the data. Pre- service teachers were also made aware that any part of their responses in completing the questionnaire, being observed in a classroom and having an

Hasniza Nordin Page 62

interview would bear no weight on their final results of the teaching practicum. Next, the researcher sought permission from the school principal to contact individual teachers to request their participation and to meet the pre-service teacher on a regular basis during the school day.

The data collected was treated in a way that protected the confidentiality, anonymity and privacy of the participants in the study so that the collected data did not give negative feedback to them (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Kvale, 2009). Although the researcher could not promise their full anonymity due to the small number of participants involved, the researcher used pseudonyms as agreed by each participant (Kvale, 2009) to protect their identity. No information obtained during the study was discussed with people other than the researcher’s supervisors. The researcher had a transcriber to help her transcribe the recorded interviews both for Case Study 1 and Case Study 2. However, to ensure what the participants had told the researcher remained confidential, the transcriptionist was not familiar with the research situation and was from a different field. The transcribed audiotapes were stored in a locked cabinet, the consent forms and transcripts were stored separately in a locked filing cabinet at home. Data will be retained for at least five years after which they will be destroyed. The data stored on the researcher’s personal computer can be accessed by a password known only to the researcher.