DATA COLLECTION PROCESS

Primarily, data were collected through semi- and unstructured interviews, using interview guides with two sets of questions directed at inmates who were currently enrolled in different educational activities (Appendix C). Another set of interviews was aimed at facilitators, educators and officials (Appendix D). This category included facilitator-offenders, known within

the correctional context as facilitators, and officials providing educational programmes and activities to offenders. The facilitators are offenders who hold a minimum of Grade 12 (Matric) upwards. They apply for teaching positions advertised within the correctional centres, and are employed as education facilitators. This practice applies only in female and male centres. Youth centres are considered centres of excellence, and that embrace centres where educational activities are conducted only by qualified educators and service providers.

4.7.1 Interviews

The interviews were targeted at the following categories of participants:

• The inmates participating in formal basic education level: Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) level 1 – 4. These inmates were attending classes on a daily basis

• Those in self-study programmes at Grade 12.

• Those following post-school studies with different further education and training (FET) colleges and higher education universities, such as those studying with UNISA.

• Inmates who were participating in skills development programmes (non-formal education) such as computer literacy courses, workshop and production, including agricultural and farming activities. There were also those involved in informal programmes like counselling services with counsellors, social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists; church services, sports, recreation, arts and cultural activities, including reading and visits to the libraries. • Facilitators who were working as educators and Correctional Services officials and officials

from other service providers. Two centres for males and females had facilitators. Ordinarily, the juvenile centres do not use facilitators. All educators in the juvenile centre are qualified teachers. The interviews in this category had two sections for inmate-facilitators and for officials including those from other organisations providing educational services to the offenders. The interviews gave an account of events as they related to the study and some verbatim interviews are reported in Chapters 5 and 6.

The interviews were recorded with the use of a digital recorder. From the recorder, the data were transcribed into written notes. Some narrative stories from the recorder, and others were transcribed verbatim as stories. As elaborated above, two focus group interviews were held with five librarian-offenders and 15 workshop offenders.

4.7.2 Field-notes

Use of direct observations was another method of data collection at the three correctional centres. All observations that the researcher regarded as pertinent to capture the imagination of the readers were noted during observation visits through the field-notes that were made. The observations could not be captured in pictures as cameras were not allowed in the correctional centres. The descriptive findings made during observations and field-notes are reported in the next section.

The prohibition of cameras and video-tapes compelled the researcher as fieldworker to make comprehensive field notes during data collection as she tried to capture any physical situations or emotional perceptions and anything that could be translated into useful data. Field notes were compiled by the researcher after each observation session. That was meant to record observations whilst they still remained in the memory. Those memories with little stories were noted with their reflections and interpretations. Field-notes played a critical role in this study for re-storying the experiences, emotions expressed and how they were interpreted and understood by the researcher (Slabon, Richards & Dennon, 2014).

4.7.3 Use of Observation Guide and Checklist

An observation schedule (Appendix E) was designed to address the three research questions specifically to observe and investigate how teaching and learning occurred in correctional facilities, environments considered as challenging. The observation schedule and logistics were prepared beforehand and agreed upon with the authorities. Items extrapolated from the four research questions and two assumptions for this study were used in preparing the observation guide. There were six items in the observation guideline or checklist:

• The classroom setup;

• Room interior design and conditions;

• Participation and interaction of learners and educators; • Tuition methods used;

• Discussions and group work; and • Spontaneity.

It was the researcher’s expectation that equipment like desks, chairs, writing boards, and computers would be visible during the observation sessions in the classrooms and lecture rooms. In the three centres, the equipment was available, but its availability differed, as explained further in chapter 5 on research findings. The observation guide was divided into two main sections as follows:

4.7.3.1 Physical infrastructure

• Was the furniture visible/available for an enhanced teaching and learning environment for adult learners?

• What was the condition of the teaching and learning materials for both learners and educators?

• The general atmosphere regarding, for example, the environment – was there enough light for those with visual challenges?

• Were there some learners with other disabilities?

In data analysis section, the above questions are addressed fully. 4.7.3.2 Teaching and learning activities

• How learners were composed, e.g. their sitting postures and other non-verbal cues?

• What relationship, interaction and participation existed between learners and educators during lessons?

• How prepared were educators in their teaching? • What methods were used in class?

• How did the methods motivate or hinder learner participation?

• What levels of concentration, attentiveness, and show of interest, disinterest, and any distractions affecting teaching and learning sessions were evident during the lessons?

• What activities were done in sessions or group-work?

In data analysis and data interpretation sections to follow, the above questions and observations are fully addressed.

4.7.4 Interview guide

Two interview guides (Appendix C and D for learners and officials) were prepared beforehand in which four research questions and two assumptions for this study were extrapolated into questions. Semi-structured interviews are defined as those organised around areas of particular interest, while still allowing considerable flexibility in scope and depth. Usually, semi-structured interviews can also refer to open-ended or guided interviews (De Vos, et al., 2011). The researcher prepared the semi-structured interview guide for scrutiny by the security authorities of the correctional services. However, that did not prevent some more probing questions being asked during the interviews where it was felt necessary. In other words, the semi-structured interviews did not affect data collection or limit accessing information from the respondents, as probing questions were asked.

4.7.5 Use of a Tape-Recorder for Interviews

In preparation for field-work, one of the conditions was that a tape-recorder (digital-recorder) would be allowed, but no photographs or video-taping of proceedings were permitted. The condition was stated in the ethics clearance of the correctional services. The researcher used a digital recorder in some interviews and observation sessions held in the three centres. The use of a (tape) digital recorder became useful particularly where time was limited, as it fast-tracked the interviews and data could be retrieved later after sessions. The use of a tape-recorder made it convenient to transcribe and reduce distortions where they occurred, particularly during data analysis. This is elaborated on under the data analysis section in the subsequent sections of this chapter. The use of a tape recorder helped to triangulate some interviews, as it was easier to retrieve data from the recorder to verify facts or verbatim conversations. However, the study acknowledged that because there was one digital recorder, there were times when interviews were arranged for the researcher and the fieldworker, and in such cases one interview was done without a recorder.