Data Collection: Qualitative Methods

Observation

In this study, observation was used as a key method for studying children’s learning in everyday situations by considering both the perspective of the child and the teacher and by actively examining the relationship between these perspectives. Observation was chosen as an effective way of recording what actually happens in the life of an individual child during the fieldwork period. Through experiencing life at first hand in the classroom, I was in a position to see as the child sees and hear as the child hears which enabled me to build a picture of the reality of classroom life.

Observations can vary across a number of dimensions. One way in which a distinction is made is the type of observation being conducted and the degree to which the researcher is part of the actual observation. Johnson and Christensen (2008) have identified four types of observation depending on the extent of participation involved. These include (1) complete participation (2) participant as observer (3) observer as participant (4) complete observer. In this study, I located myself as ‘participant as observer’. In other words, although I spent a considerable amount of time with the children, it was clear from the beginning that I was conducting research. I attempted to remain as inconspicuous as possible and establish an identity as someone who was a friendly person wishing to learn more about the children’s learning. I believed this identity would best balance power in favour of the children and encourage them to be open with me in the research process. I also remained aware of my own influence on the learning interactions in the classroom.

Observations were carried out using the Narrative/Free Descriptions method which allowed for the complexity of children’s experiences in classes to be recorded and as a result a comprehensive picture of classroom life was built up over a

prolonged period. Narrative observations were utilised to provide detail of what the Junior Infants were involved in doing. The range of activities, the levels of interaction with the older children, their peers and the adults were recorded. This method enabled me to record as much information as possible throughout the observation period including the context of the activity, the child’s facial expression etc. I supplemented these direct observations with field notes describing the classroom layout, furniture, displays, equipment, storage and outdoor provision. I recorded every aspect of classroom life that I thought might have relevance or significance in the inquiry.

Critics of participant observation as a data gathering technique highlight the subjective and potentially unreliable nature of human perception and I was aware that to lessen my bias I needed to learn to be a careful systematic observer (Merriman, 2009). Therefore, I used the broad framework of the ‘Target Child Observation Schedule’ to give structure to my initial three visits in each classroom. In the Target Child Observation Schedule which was developed by Sylva, Painter and Roy (1980) for use in their observation study of nursery schools, the chosen child is observed unobtrusively as she goes about her normal routine in the classroom. In my fieldwork I observed the target child for approximately 20 minutes and I kept a detailed record of what the child was doing, with whom she was interacting and what she was saying for each 30 seconds of observation. The target child method allowed me to capture broad sequences of behaviour and their consequences and thus, the format of the observation schedule allowed for linking observations with sociocultural aspects of learning which provided the framework of this study. The Target Child Observation Schedule and an extract from an observation are included in Appendix 3.

Each of the eight case study schools was visited approximately twice a month for the period of one school year. The Junior Infant pupils were observed on each visit I made to the school and observations took place at various times during the school day. The aim was to study meaningful interactions of participants involved in a community of practice with a minimum amount of obstruction and intervention and to capture the lived experiences of the participants as they constructed their learning stories. In total 125 observations were made of 41 Junior Infant pupils over the 58 school visits carried out for this research study.

Interviews

Constructivist or interpretive research facilitates the use of the socio-cultural lens as this genre of research enables interpretation of sociocultural contexts. The use of an interpretive inquiry approach maintains a consistency with the sociocultural theoretical framing this study. Such a view is also reflected in methodological considerations of the study where data gathering was primarily conducted through dialogue with teachers, parents and children. The teachers, parents and children were considered as insiders and every opportunity was provided to construct a discourse which moved beyond surface talk to a rich discussion of thoughts and beliefs.

Kvale (2006) warns against the interview process being seen as an inherently reciprocal process between the researcher and the participant. He argues that an interview is not an open and dominance free dialogue between egalitarian partners but a ‘specific hierarchical and instrumental form of conversation where the interviewer sets the stage and scripts in accord with his or her research interests’ (Kvale, 2006, p. 485). While being aware of the power dynamics that existed in the interviewing process, I held the view that interviewing is a constructive method of qualitative research and had the ability to generate honest opinions and genuine conversation.

The case study methodology adopted involved the design, piloting and administration of interview schedules to establish the perspectives of children, teachers and parents and to uncover the meaning of their experiences. According to Hatch (2002b, p.91) ‘qualitative researchers use interviews to uncover the meaning structures that participants use to organize experiences and make sense of their worlds’. The types of interviews used in this research were semi-structured and unstructured which were based on the procedure as outlined by Kvale and Brinkman (2009). These were carried out in seven method stages: thematizing, designing the interview guide so it addresses the research questions, the interview itself, transcribing, analysing, verification and reporting. The interviews were characterized by a methodological awareness of question forms and a focus on the dynamics of interaction between me and the participants. A pilot study of all interviews; with teachers, parents and with children was carried out in year one of the data gathering phase and is outlined later in this chapter.

Interviews with Teachers

Since a basic assumption of conducting in-depth interviews is that the meaning people interpret from their experience affects the way they carry out that experience, the intent of scheduling interviews for this project was to capture the participant teachers’ explanations, feelings, motivations and concerns regarding the early childhood pedagogical practices employed in the classroom (Seidman, 2006). I decided to adopt an unstructured or ‘non-standardised’ approach (Fielding & Thomas, 2008, p. 247) where the questions were based on what emerged during the classroom observations. The interviews proceeded more like conversations or discussions with questions being asked as themes and topics emerged naturally and the teachers were free to respond as well as lead the discussion as they wished. When applicable, prompts and probes (Hatch, 2002b) were inserted to encourage participants to provide more information and/or examples about topical areas introduced during the various sections of the interview. The interview schedule for teachers is contained in Appendix 4.

Once the teachers began to share their thoughts on the impact of the multigrade setting on young children’s learning some evidence of their deeper pedagogical values emerged. It was as Jensen, Foster and Eddy (1997, p. 863) suggest that through having opportunities to talk about practice or tell stories about daily experiences, practitioners began to ‘locate their voices and become more aware of their pedagogical intentions’. In order to elicit this level of response from participants, each interview was conducted in a naturalistic setting and I took notes to document what was said. The establishment of mutual respect and trust with participants was also a key element of this study so it was important to spend time building a relationship with the participants.

Interviews with Parents

Semi-structured interviews containing a mixture of both open and closed questions were carried out with parents on their interpretation of elements of early childhood pedagogy in the multigrade classroom. Some of these interviews were carried out in focus groups as is detailed in Table 4.3 below. It was decided that focus groups were a potentially useful method of data collection with parents because they permit participants to openly discuss their beliefs without feeling targeted, which can occur in a one-on-one interview (Johnson and Christensen, 2008). Also, focus groups

enable researchers to gain insight into complex issues (Keim, Swanson, Cann, & Salinas, 1999). My role in the focus group became one of facilitator of the discussion, using more open-ended questions which allowed for participants to dictate the content and direction of the discussion, within the broad framework provided. (The interview guide for parents is contained in Appendix 5). Interviews with parents were approximately 45 minutes in length and each interview was audio-taped. I issued invitations to parents of all the Junior Infant children in the case study schools and nineteen agreed to participate (see Appendix 6). Subsequently, two parents were unable to participate, so, in total seventeen parents were interviewed in the case study schools (one male and sixteen females). Parents were given a choice as to whether they wished to be interviewed individually or in focus groups. Four focus group and four individual interviews were carried out with the parents.

Interviews with Children

The overall purpose of talking to children in this inquiry was to encourage them to think about a variety of activities in which they participated. This gave the researcher some insight into their engagement in learning. I was interested in whether the children would reveal why they were involved in an activity, whether the activity had provided them with a challenge and the degree of joint involvement there had been with others (peers, older children or teachers). Interviews were carried out with the children in focus groups.

Most researchers agree that interviewing young children requires a special degree of preparation and provision so they can talk freely and feel relaxed in the situation (Brooker, 2001).With this in mind, I reflected well on preparatory processes before encountering the young children in this study to ensure the approach to interviewing them was child-focused. (Copies of Parent Consent and Child Assent forms are included in Appendix 6 of this thesis and the interview schedule for the children’s interview is contained in Appendix 7). A number of strategies have commonly been used to make the interview child-friendly. These included having a list of prompts related to points of focus to act as ‘possible lines of enquiry’ as is suggested by Wilson and Powell (2001, p. 27). In addition I followed the advice of Green and Hill, (2005) who suggest the use of tasks or creative methods within the interview to generate rich and varied data. In the first interview I used the children’s own drawings to soften the effects of the high control question and answer format

common to adult interviews. At the second interview the children photographed places of importance in their schools and I had these photographs printed for the third interview. The discussion at the third interview centred on the photographs and while viewing them the children were encouraged to talk about the various places they had selected. At the final interview, children were shown generic photographs of older and younger children in various situations (for example, an older child reading with a younger child) which I had sourced on the internet. These were used as a stimulus to initiate discussion about their relationships with the older children in their classrooms. The interview had been piloted with two children who had been in Junior Infants the previous year, and it was found that the use of the drawings and photographs did stimulate discussions especially with quieter children.

Furthermore, Cameron (2005) notes that the researcher could use reflective responses to show empathy and understanding for the children. Thus, while interviewing I listened to the child’s story and used reflections to encourage free narrative where possible. The physical setting of the room was also important. Different conditions prevailed in each of the eight case study schools but I attempted to arrange furniture that enabled both the children and me to sit on an equal level.

The initial stages of the interview were devoted to gaining a shared sense of purpose, establishing ground rules and helping the children to know a little about what to expect. It was important to describe the interview purpose so as to provide the best understanding for the child. As part of the invitation to be interviewed, I suggested to children that they had some important ideas that I would like to hear. I explained this usually in the following way ‘I know you have lots of interesting things to say about children learning in school. Your Mum and Dad agreed that you might help me. I am going to try to listen to you very hard.’ It was important to recognise that some children may feel quite uncertain about being involved in an interview. Throughout the discussion, I used lots of phrases such as ‘That’s very interesting,’ to provide assurance to the child and enable him/her to elaborate. The interviews took place in a variety of locations in the various schools which included the staffroom, a cloakroom and a room normally used for Learning Support tuition purposes. When the interview with the children was complete, I always thanked each child and assured her that the information given was very useful to my work. If, as occasionally it did happen that a child wanted to return to the classroom, she was allowed immediately. Also, if the

child showed signs of tiredness she was given the choice of concluding the interview and returning to the classroom.

As soon as possible after the interview I transcribed the recordings of the parents’ and children’s interviews manually. Although this was a long, time- consuming process, it enabled me to become very familiar with the data. This would subsequently prove beneficial as I conducted a thematic analysis and sought to unpack the content and nature of a particular them.

Pilot Case Study

A pilot study is useful in testing and refining the research tools, assessing degrees of observer bias, acting as an introduction to the field of study and enabling the ‘proper direction of research lines of enquiry’ (Sampson, 2004, p. 390). For these reasons a pilot study was included in the research design. In addition to providing further background to inform the research questions, the experience gained in the pilot study was also helpful in establishing the access and in maintaining good fieldwork relations. The pilot study was carried out in a multigrade class where the teacher taught three grades, Junior Infants, Senior Infants and First Class and involved two days observation, and pilot interviews with the teachers, parents and children. The school was not included in the subsequent study.

As the primary instrument of data collection in the case study is the researcher it was important for me to avoid limiting my research by a lack of sensitivity or integrity during the data collection. The observation method was a particular cause of concern to me as I lacked experience in this area and there was no training available. At the initial stages of the study I had decided to use the Target Child Observation Schedule. However, during the pilot study it became apparent that the schedule was too highly structured and more widely used to collect quantitative data. The unstructured approach to observation can be very flexible and may not be as tightly focused (Punch, 2009). As a result of the pilot study I decided to mix naturalistic observation with the Target Child Schedule.

On looking at the data in the teachers’ interviews and questionnaires, it became apparent that both sets were very similar. (The Interview Guide for Teachers used in the pilot study is contained in Appendix 8). In the interest of widening the variety of data being gathered, I decided to adopt a less standard approach where the questions were based on what happened during the classroom observations. The interviews were more like conversations or discussions with questions being asked as

themes and topics emerged in the everyday life of the classroom. No changes were made to the interviews for parents or children after piloting.